Re: discrepancy between SPARQL and Turtle

Thanks to you both.
I was suspecting that this "discovery" of mine was actually old news for 
others :)

+1 to what Andy wrote and to "fix" SPARQL 1.2.

   pa

On 12/05/2026 17:39, thomas@pellissier-tanon.fr wrote:
> +1 to Andy.
>
> Oxigraph also consider it as a string of length 2 except if a compile time option is set and then it's 1 just like the spec.
>
> Like Andy said, my rational is also to avoid obfuscation attacks and similarly to Jena, I never got any feedback/complain about it.
>
> I am also in favor of changing the behavior. I don't see any upside with the current SPARQL behavior.
>
> Thomas
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On Tuesday, 05/12/26 at 12:47 Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> wrote:
> On 12/05/2026 10:54, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>> *  Jena, ... consider it as a string of length 2
> Not quite.
>
> With SPARQL 1.2 strict syntax, it's 1.
> In general use syntax, it's 2.
>
> This has not been a problem, probably because \ does not need to be a
> numeric escape.
>
> This reflects earlier discussions and a sense then that the Turtle way,
> including limiting escape sequences replacement in URIs and literals is
> better.
>
> https://github.com/w3c/sparql-query/issues/164
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/pull/151#issuecomment-2446744098
> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-tests/tree/main/sparql/sparql12/codepoint-escapes
>
> Unrestricted \u allows for obfuscation attacks.
> I think we should change it.
>
> The fact that there is variability across systems suggests to me that
> the impact is low.
>
> Others will argue for perfect compatibility.
>
>       Andy
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2026 16:03:01 UTC