- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:01:07 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Steve Harris wrote: > > > On 10 Jun 2006, at 20:35, Seaborne, Andy wrote: >>> Strictly speaking, commas may be unnecessary since SELECT ?a ?b + ?c >>> can be parsed. >> >> Unbracketed expressions would need commas to know when they end and a >> new one start. Given we are in CR, mandatory commas would be a >> significant change. > > Is that a huge setback? For application writers, it would break every SELECT/DESCRIBE query with two or more variables projected. For implementers, it would break every implementation http://esw.w3.org/topic/SparqlImplementations > I'm not sure of the process implications. I'll leave it to the chair to discuss the process implications :-) Andy > > Given that the commas-in-triple-patterns consistency problem is gone is > seems a bit unfortunate to stick with a decision that results from that. > >> I hope I've shown that expressions in SELECT are possible. > > You have, but not that it's particularly pleasant syntax. > > - Steve >
Received on Sunday, 11 June 2006 11:01:24 UTC