Re: Comments on WD-rdf-testcases-20010912

* Dave Beckett wrote:
>These changes have been folded into
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/

I'd still prefer to have a sole definition for N-Triples outside this
specification, probably together with a formal specification of
Notation3 (see my "Notation3 woes" [1]), but ok...

I still wonder whether N-Triple documents are considered to actually be
written by humans or a plain RDF serialization format. If the former,
I'd strongly recommend to allow usage of other encodings then US-ASCII.
Note that if transferred via HTTP, those .nt files would need a
Content-Type like

  Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii

since ommitted charset parameters on text/* types imply ISO-8859-1 as
per RFC 2616. This would violate section 3 of the draft which requires
US-ASCII. I don't know whether this is really a good idea at all.

Is there any special reason why \U escapes need *8* digits even if only
up to six digits are allowed?

Anyway, the draft looks way better now.

  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Sep/0057.html

all the best,
-- 
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/