W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > July 2017

Re: Proposed fixed version of N-Triples https://www.w3.org/TR/n-triples/ Section 7

From: Wouter Beek <wouter@triply.cc>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 17:02:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEh2WcOg7q_NLS+Nm-fOR3ABM5bRKwh5AXy_iyN91nwSwcQLFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <peter.patel-schneider@nuance.com>
Cc: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi Peter, others,

Thanks for working on clarifying the grammar!

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
peter.patel-schneider@nuance.com> wrote:

> [7]     EOL     ::=     ( WS? ('#x22' [^#xD#xA]* )? [#xD#xA] )+
[7a]    END     ::=     EOL? WS? ('#x22' [^#xD#xA]* )?

Do you mean #x23 in the above two rules?  I'm not sure what a double quote
would do there, but a line comment might make sense.

Now that end-of-line characters are made explicit in the grammar, I'm
wondering whether there are implications for the way in which line numbers
are reported by processors?  E.g., if a parser encounters a bug on a
certain line it is nice if the user is able to go to that line and fix the
bug there.

Most processors will use Unix and/or Windows end-of-line conventions and
will report an error on the second line of the following content (i.e.,
missing end-of-statement character):


But according to the N-Triples grammar, the missing end-of-statement
character is not on the second but on the third line.


Email: wouter@triply.cc
WWW: http://triply.cc
Tel: +31647674624
Received on Friday, 7 July 2017 15:03:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:52 UTC