Re: json result format --> new charter !?

On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 12:44 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Sandro,
> 
> Thanks for doing this - the diff is especially useful.
> 
> Do we need to add the Overview document to the list of documents?  if 
> it's REC-track, then adding it for completeness would be safest.

Thanks -- I've added that.

> On 30/05/11 08:32, Steve Harris wrote:
> > Overall seems good to me, but I'd suggest a couple of changes:
> >
> > In light of the :s :p 18. change I'd propose to weaken the back compat requirement. Maybe something like "...excepting the case of errata", or so.
> 
> Maybe add that alignment between Turtle (submission?) and SPARQL is of 
> importance.  I think this then gives us latitude to align escape 
> processing and 18.  I don't think "18." can be kept under errata as the 
> change is being made to Turtle and SPARQL so it can't be simply classed 
> as errata ("we really meant ...").
> 
> This is already reflected on the LC with the working group note
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/query-1.1/rq25.xml#grammar
> 
> Suggestion:
> """
> The working group will consider alignment of syntax with the areas of 
> overlay with Turtle [link-submission] where it causes minimal change.
> """

Thanks.  I've added wording like that in two places; search for
"turtle".

    -- Sandro

>  Andy
> 
>

Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 18:13:11 UTC