- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 14:28:12 +0200
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 20 Aug 2014 at 14:13, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > 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. Right > 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. Yep. The question is how similar they will be. Or, in other words, how easy is it to distinguish them. > 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 Right, that was the point I was trying to make. Especially if you are used to Turtle, it is very easy to miss the fact that the angular brackets are missing in the second example. > 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? Perhaps just using different delimiters? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:28:45 UTC