Re: Issues found in Turtle spec

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>wrote:

> On Aug 30, 2011, at 7:40 AM, "Alex Hall" <alexhall@revelytix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Gregg Kellogg < <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
> 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.
>

Ahh.  At one point, the raw EBNF correctly read [#x00-#x20] but apparently
some tool in the chain was a little bit over-eager in its formatting and
converted the #x20 to a space character, hence the malformed expression that
you pointed out.  It's a known issue, but thanks for reminding us about it.

-Alex