W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: NTriple review

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 19:58:27 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021111195710.035bffc0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 17:51 11/11/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:

>At 12:31 PM 11/11/02 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
>>Hmm, the EBNF we are using from
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-notation can't express the length
>>restrictions of RFC3066 on the primary-subtag and subtag.
>>
>>so at best we can have:
>>
>>   language ::= [A-Za-z0-9]+ ('-' [A-Za-z0-9]+ )?
>>
>>or if we go for lowercase only
>>
>>   language ::= [a-z0-9]+ ('-' [a-z0-9]+ )?
>>
>>I'm prefering the latter I think; with pointers to the RFC3066
>>section above.  The current N-Triples language definition is too far
>>away from the RFC3066 etc. version.
>
>I don't have strong feelings here, but I note that RFC3066 explicitly 
>allows upper- and lower-case.  That doesn't mean we can't be more 
>restrictive in N-triples.  I think either of the above is OK.


The abstract syntax is restrictive to a single case.  I suggest we want the 
simplest possible mapping between n-triples and the abstract 
syntax.  Hence, parses are expected to normalize the language code.

Brian
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 14:57:07 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:05 EDT