Re: N-Triples - Editorial issues

David,

Thanks for your comments (this one and the one on encouraging canonical 
triples). We expect to get back to you soon.

Best,
Guus
on behalf of the RDF WG

On 03-12-13 23:52, David Booth wrote:
> I am *so* glad that a canonical n-triples format is defined!  Thank you!
>
> Two editorial issues I notice:
>
> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/n-triples/#dfn-canonical-n-triple-document
> says: "Characters MUST be represented directly and not by UCHAR."
>
> Shouldn't that be something like: "Characters allowed directly in
> STRING_LITERAL_QUOTE MUST be represented directly and not by UCHAR." ?
>
> 2. Throughout the document, the name of the language is inconsistently
> spelled, sometimes as "N-Triples" and sometimes as "N-Triple"
> (singular).  PLEASE make the spelling consistent as "N-Triples"
> throughout.  This is more important than you may think, because
> inconsistency in the spec encourages inconsistent spellings in the wild
> among tools, which just causes unnecessary headache and wasted time for
> users.
>
> Thanks!
> David
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 09:36:58 UTC