Re: TriG examples not conforming to grammar

Gregg Kellogg wrote:

> My reading of this rule, and the implementation of my own 
> parser, makes both versions legal.  [...]
>
> Because the triplesBlock? is inside ('.' triplesBlock?) ? 
> this means that a trailing dot is fine, or a trailing dot 
> followed by another triplesBlock, or nothing at all.

Damn.  You're right.  I wonder how I missed that?

Sorry for the noise.

Richard