Re: Issues found in Turtle spec

On Aug 30, 2011, at 7:40 AM, "Alex Hall" <alexhall@revelytix.com<mailto:alexhall@revelytix.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Gregg Kellogg <<mailto:gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>gregg@kellogg-assoc.com<mailto:gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>> wrote:
>> The EBNF definition of IRI_REF seems malformed,
>
> The IRI_REF is malformed and should match the production from SPARQL
> which it no longer does.
>
>> and has no provision for \^,
>> as discussed elsewhere in the spec. We presume that [#0000- ] is intended to
>> be [#0000-#0020].
>
> While [#0000- ] is valid EBNF it's not exactly readable ;)

Well, given the rather week spec for EBNF, it's hard to tell if it's valid. Perhaps you could expand on it's interpretation.

The productions in the table are supposed to match the EBNF spec at <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-notation> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-notation -- are there parts of this which you find ambiguous or confusing?  If so, could you please indicate which parts?

Looking at that reference, I find nothing that describes a range with a missing end (e.g., [#0000-]., thus it is not clear to me that this is a valid expression.

That said, there are known formatting issues in the table found in the Turtle document which make the grammar less readable than it should be.  For instance, the fragment you quote, [#0000- ], should read [#x00-#x20] in order to exactly match the EBNF referenced by the Turtle doc.  I think the latter form pretty unambiguously matches characters with code points 0 through 32.

This is, in fact, how interpreted it.

Thanks for helping to clear this up.

Gregg

-Alex