- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 13:59:45 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7y8e_aTrJsZzT+mFxwk6ug45-NMC0FnKSTPZCEwNxjTw@mail.gmail.com>
On 29 June 2017 at 13:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > One problem with providing these test cases is that it is not really > possible > to determine exactly what the current grammar allows. > Yup. I was typing on my phone earlier, and stopped short of typing previously-unclear-but-now-illegal etc. > For example, there are multiple readings of "terminal". Is it any > terminal, > in which case white space might be allowed within blank node labels? Is it > any terminal mentioned in the productions for non-terminals, in which case > blank space might be allowed before language tags? Is it only named > terminals > mentioned in the productions for non-terminals? > > However, I could produce some interesting cases. > That sounds pretty useful e.g. for flushing out different behaviours amongst current implementation, which might in turn motivate their implementors to make another pass over all this. Dan > > peter > > On 06/29/2017 05:41 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > > > > > > On 29 Jun 2017 12:40 pm, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> > wrote: > > > > > > > On 29 Jun 2017, at 13:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > I was hoping that my message would (instead) trigger a broader > > examination of > > > the grammars for N-Triples, N-Quads, and Turtle and result in > > > community-approved revised grammars for each of them. Each of > these > > grammars > > > has problems. The problems with the N-Triples grammar are the > easiest > > to fix. > > > > One does not include the other… I mean, you (in plural, seeing the > short > > discussion on swig) did identify an erratum which must therefore be > > recorded. If there is a wider discussion that leads to more > proposals, we > > just have to record those as well… > > > > (In my experience not many people read and/or active on > > public-rdf-comments, I do not think you will get a lot of discussion > on > > this list…:-( > > > > > > There are a few lurkers! > > > > It would be good to have some testcases annotated as being unchanged, > > previously-ok-now-illegal, previously-illegal-now-ok, etc. > > > > > > Ivan > > > > > > > > > > peter > > > > > > On 06/29/2017 03:17 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > > >> Peter, > > >> > > >> I have added this to the official Errata list: > > >> > > >> https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF1.1_Errata > > <https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF1.1_Errata> > > >> > > >> Thanks > > >> > > >> Ivan > > > > > > ---- > > Ivan Herman, W3C > > Publishing@W3C Technical Lead > > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > > mobile: +31-641044153 <tel:%2B31-641044153> > > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > > >
Received on Thursday, 29 June 2017 13:00:24 UTC