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

Re: NTriple review

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 20:13:32 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021111201308.039c2400@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 07:58 PM 11/11/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>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.

I overlooked that.  In which case I fully agree.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2002 05:26:58 EST

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