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

Here are a few interesting cases:

Document 1 (two lines, each terminated with LF):

#comment
#comment

Status in current grammar: probably illegal
Status in new grammar:  legal


Document 2 (no LF or CR at end of single line):

<http://example.org/a><http://example.org/b><http://example.org/c>.# comment

Status in current grammar: illegal
Status in new grammar:  legal


Document 3 (one line, terminated with LF):

<http://example.org/a> <http://example.org/b> <http://example.org/c> .

Status in current grammar: illegal
Status in new grammar:  legal


Document 4 (one line, terminated with LF):

<http://example.org/a><http://example.org/b>"x" ^^ <http://example.org/c> .

Status in current grammar: illegal
Status in new grammar:  legal


Document 5 (one line, terminated with LF):

_:a _:b <http://example.org/b>"x"^^<http://example.org/c>.

Status in current grammar: probably illegal
Status in new grammar:  illegal


Document 6 (one line, terminated with LF):

<http://example.org/a><http://example.org/b>"x"@e n.

Status in current grammar: probably illegal
Status in new grammar:  illegal

Document 7 (one line, terminated with LF):

<http://example.org/a><http://example.org/ b>"x"@en.

Status in current grammar: probably illegal
Status in new grammar:  illegal


Because the rules for white space are broken as stated, it is hard to
determine what the intended rules are supposed to be.


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.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 29 June 2017 13:18:24 UTC