- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:58:19 -0700
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4E4EA43B.90609@topquadrant.com>
Hi Zhe in the RDF Core WG we invented N-Triples specifically scoping it as a format for test cases. This motivated the ascii only constraint, to make it easy for us somewhat ignorant people to get our heads around it, (at this time Jena, which I was also working on, had very elementary defects to do with encodings). We also made an explicit decision to not recommend it. We wrote: [[ *NOTE*: N-Triples is an RDF syntax for expressing RDF test cases and defining the correspondence between RDF/XML and the RDF abstract syntax. RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ref-rdf-syntax>] is the recommended syntax for applications to exchange RDF information. ]] Now, had if it been rec tracked at that time, we would have had review comments such as http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-UniqueEncoding [[ [S] When a unique encoding is mandated, the encoding MUST be UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32. ]] This was the consensus at that time, and is now recommended http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-UniqueEncoding So ... the proposal to base N triples on UTF-8 is not introducing another form, but completing work on N Triples that this group has been chartered to do. .... From a procedural point of view, it seems that one way we will get a formal objection from Oracle, and the other we will get a formal objection from I18N Jeremy On 8/19/2011 8:47 AM, Zhe Wu wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > If the current N-TRIPLE syntax is able to represent all the data we > want to represent, and most (if not all) tools are > already accepting the current syntax, then why do we introduce another > form and run the risk of incompatibility? > > Thanks, > > Zhe
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 17:58:41 UTC