- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:02:06 -0600
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
JJC asks that we re-consider our position on punctuationSyntax; (a) he asks that foo:123 be allowed (b) he suggests editorial changes that disconnect the N3/turtle/SPARQL foo:bar notation from XML QNames http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Dec/0018.html It's not obvious to me that there's sufficient new information to reconsider the decision. I'm inclined to let him know that we have previously considered this issue and show him our decision records, but anyone who is persuaded by JJC's arguments that we should take another look will please say so. These tests make it pretty clear to me that we considered all sorts of details about qname syntax... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-07-rq syntax-qname-07.rq Approved syntax-qname-08.rq Approved syntax-qname-09.rq Approved syntax-qname-10.rq Approved syntax-qname-11.rq Approved syntax-qname-12.rq Approved syntax-qname-13.rq Approved syntax-qname-14.rq Approved http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/#syntax-qname-14-rq -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 00:02:10 UTC