- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:11:08 -0600
- To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Sun, 2006-03-05 at 18:56 -0500, Elliotte Harold wrote: > If there's a justification for using both $ and ? to represent > variables, I haven't found it yet. The WG made that choice in the course of resolving the punctuationSyntax issue. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#punctuationSyntax A number of design considerations were laid out in: Draft: open issues around '?' use. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0160 > I haven't finished reading the spec > yet, so I could be missing it; but just looking at the BNF, I don't > think there's any significant difference. Indeed, there is none. > If this is true, then I strongly urge the working group to pick one. > personally I prefer the dollar sign. It's not a reserved character in > URLs and it's already used to indicate variables in other languages such > as PHP. However this isn't a strong preference. I could certainly live > with a question mark. > > However I feel having too makes the language pointlessly complex, much > harder to read, and harder to learn. It increases the size of the spec, > increases the size and complexity of the grammar, and reserves an extra > character that must now be avoided. Please pick one or the other. Flip a > coin if you have to, but please don't use both. We did try to pick one, but only found consensus in allowing both. At this point in the process, I would need considerably more information in order to ask the WG to re-consider this aspec of the design. I'm pretty sure we discussed those considerations. > Please treat this as an official last call comment and file a resolution > in disposition of last call comments. Thank you. We dispose of last call comments in email like this one. Please let us know whether you're satisfied with this response. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 04:11:14 UTC