- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:13:00 +0200
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Hi Markus,
> Yeah. Considering we (or someone else) *might* introduce full Turtle at a
> later point. Do we really want to have two syntaxes that look so similar,
> yet are incompatible with each other?
We all seem to agree that we don't want full Turtle syntax,
because then we wouldn't be able to parse parameters with a simple regex.
So whatever we'll have, it won't be Turtle.
That means that, in any case, whether or not we go with angular brackets,
if somebody decides to support full Turtle literal syntax*,
we end up with similar but incompatible syntaxes.
The only way to avoid this, is to use full Turtle literal syntax ourselves.
(*even though I don't see a use case for that)
> """Markus"""^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
> """Markus"""^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string
Note that these mean different things anyway!
In our template syntax, it would express the string:
""Markus""
In Turtle syntax, It would express the string:
Markus
So that's yet another point where we are *not* Turtle.
> I still see that as the source of many hard-to-detect errors, bugs, and
> incompatibilities. But if the group thinks this is the way to go, I won't
> stand in the way.
But what's the alternative? Full Turtle literal syntax then?
Best,
Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:13:33 UTC