- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:00:42 -0400
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:53:46PM +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: > > I find your description of the problems as evidence to consider a change. I find it very uncompelling evidence, frankly. > As far as I know, that is possible. QNames must have a : in them, all > other names could be variable names. However, that would not make > them stand out in the syntax - which is useful for reading them Very -1 for not distinguishing variables syntactically by giving them a leading character. iTQL doesn't do this, and hence I find reading lots of it very frustratingl. > > -> Replace the '?' by a '$' or '_' or at the very least allow the use > > of a '$' or '_' as a synomym for the '?'. > > I could support either replacing ? with $ or allowing both. My > slight preference is for replacing ? with $, neutral to negative on > having both. -1 on replacing "?" with "$". +1 on allowing both. > -1 to those; don't say 'variable' to me. Agree. Best, Kendall Clark -- And you have never been in love until you've seen sunlight thrown over smashed human bone. --Morrissey
Received on Monday, 25 October 2004 14:01:07 UTC