Re: PROPOSED to RESOLVE ISSUE-127 with Canonical N-Triples


Don't you mean "MUST" instead of "SHOULD" in all of the below, in order 
to be considered *canonical*?


On 07/05/2013 02:26 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:
> states that the new
> N-Triples specification doesn't provide for the old functionality of a
> given triple having one and only one way to write it down. The current
> draft of N-Triples has added a Canonical N-Triples definition to the
> conformance section.
> A *canonical N-Triple document* is a *N-Triple document* with additional
> constraints:
>   * Space between terms (|WS+|) /SHOULD/ be a single space, (|U+0020|).
>   * Space after or before terms (|WS*|) /SHOULD/ be empty.
>   * |HEX| /SHOULD/ use only uppercase letters (|[A-F]|).
>   * Characters not allowed directly in STRING_LITERAL_QUOTE (|U+0022|,
>     |U+005C|, |U+000A|, |U+000D|) /SHOULD/ use |ECHAR| not |UCHAR|.
>   * Characters /SHOULD/ be represented directly and not by |UCHAR|.
> This is NOT the same as the current definition in RDF Test Cases as it
> prefers the direct representation of characters over the use of escape
> sequences. It also specifies the white space rules.
> --Gavin

Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 18:48:03 UTC