- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 10:46:48 -0700
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
- Cc: thomas@pellissier-tanon.fr, public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org
On May 12, 2026, at 9:02 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote: > > 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. Agreed with what Andy and Thomas have said. I think such a change would be good for SPARQL, and that the original SPARQL escaping mechanism is problematic. However, I was under the impression that this would be too big a change to fit under the 1.2 charter, as it would be a breaking change to the syntax (both changing semantics of some queries, and making other formerly-acceptable queries invalid). I’d love to see this fixed, but think it probably needs to wait. I agree with the suggestion to add a "note in the SPARQL spec pointing out that pitfall”. .greg
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2026 17:47:08 UTC