- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:04:08 +0100
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote: > I see that > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-08-rq > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-14-rq > > are approved.. > (must have missed that vote..) > > > I propose to make them OBSOLETE and change rq23 to either > > [84] NCCHAR ::= NCCHAR1 | '_' | '-' | [0-9] | #x00B7 | > [#x0300-#x036F] | [#x203F-#x2040] > > i.e. disallow '.' in qname > and instead write absoluteized iris like > <http://protege.stanford.edu/kb#Patient.confidentiality_cd> Since web pages often have ".html" in them, I think that it would be inconvenient not allow DOTs inside qnames. > > or > > [86] NCNAME ::= ( "_" | NCCHAR1 ) NCCHAR* ( "_" | NCCHAR1 ) Err - that is at least 2 chars long. > > i.e. allow '.' in but not at-end-of qname > e.g. > rim:Patient.confidentiality_cd Full productions for no trailing DOTs, but allowing DOTs inside prefixed names below. Andy ## SPARQL prefixed names ## (Just for reference - unchanged) QNAME ::= NCNAME_PREFIX? ":" NCNAME ## NCCHAR1 is XML 1.1's NCNameStartChar without the "_" ## (No change) NCHAR ::= ... ## This is XML NCCHAR without the "." and without "_" NCCHAR ::= NCCHAR1 | '_' | '-' | | [0-9] | #x00B7 | [#x0300-#x036F] | [#x203F-#x2040] ## No leading "_" (blank nodes) ## Could allow a triling DOT here but that would be very confusing. NCNAME_PREFIX ::= NCCHAR1 (( NCCHAR |".")* NCCHAR )? ## No trailing DOT NCNAME ::= ( "_" | NCCHAR1 ) (( NCCHAR |".")* NCCHAR )?
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2005 10:04:22 UTC