- From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:23:22 -0700
- To: Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Gavin, > > Please see my comments inline. > > >>> - Replace >>> "N-Triples may also be provided as text/plain. When used in this >>> way N-Triples must >>> use the escaped form of any character outside US-ASCII" >>> with >>> "When encoded using US-ASCII as specified in section 3 [REF1], >>> N-Triples should >>> be provided as text/plain." >> >> This isn't exactly true. There is nothing wrong with encoding an >> N-Triples file using US-ASCII and serving as application/ntriples. The >> relationship goes the other direction. If you want to provide >> text/plain N-Triples you MUST use US-ASCII. If you want to provide >> US-ASCII you can use either text/plain, text/turtle, or >> application/ntriples. >> > > I guess my question really is what do we gain from encoding using US-ASCII > and serving > as application/ntriples? The same bytes can served as application/ntriples, text/turtle, and text/plain and have exactly the same meaning. This is a good thing, UTF-8 is awesome like that. > > > >>> - Add the following to the end of "See N-Triples Media Type for the media >>> type registration form." >>> >>> For maximum backward compatibility, users or applications may want to >>> choose US-ASCII >>> encoding to serialize N-Triples. >> >> I don't think we should recommend providing any format in US-ASCII over >> UTF-8. >> > > I don't think that sentence truly recommends US-ASCII over UTF-8. It is > important, in my opinion, > for us to point out non-trivial consequences caused by the changes we > propose. > > Assume a user serializes using UTF-8 encoding for non ASCII characters and > the > new \ encoding for ', \b, and \f. Such a serialization will not work > with some of the existing tools, rapper 2-1.9.0 for example. > > The proposed new sentence simply makes clear one important consequence. Okay, I think I agree not sure on the exact phrasing but expanding the differences section seems like a good idea. Thanks very much for the feedback, I'll see if I can get some or all of it in to the document before the next meeting. --Gavin
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:23:56 UTC