Re: proposed pre-CR edits to Turtle spec

* Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name> [2013-01-04 21:34-0800]
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have read through Eric's changes and feel that they are appropriate
> > (unless Gavin objects).  Gavin?
> >
> 
> Nope, no objections.

cool, incorporated into the editor's draft.
I left the class="add" annotations so people can compare
  http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-turtle/index.html#sec-grammar-grammar
against the proposals in
  http://www.w3.org/2012/12/Turtle-ericP#sec-grammar-grammar
. These will be trivial to remove after inspection.


> > Eric has also produced a test coverage report and will upload it to dvcs.
> >  Thanks, Eric!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> > --
> > http://about.me/david_wood
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 30, 2012, at 23:06, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I finally got a good chance to make a detailed review of the Last Call
> > grammar and test out the semantics.
> > >
> > > I tweaked the grammar slightly but the language it defines is the same:
> > >  Struck NIL because it wasn't referenced
> > >  Unfactored blank because it wasn't always blank (could be rdf:nil).
> > >  Changed [Pp][Rr][Ee][Ff][Ii][Xx] to "PREFIX" with a note about case.
> > >  Added missing xs before unicode code points in PN_CHARS_BASE and
> > PN_CHARS.
> > >
> > > In the semantics, I updated the term constructors to indicate which
> > escaping was relevent where and updated the Triple Constructors after
> > testing the algorithm against all of the Turtle tests that Andy submitted.
> > >
> > > Green stuff in <http://www.w3.org/2012/12/Turtle-ericP> is stuff I
> > propose to add. Red I propose to remove. I think it's worth getting this
> > right before CR. Most of my feedback comes from my own XMass CR period. I
> > believe all of this is clarifications or editorial adjustments so we could
> > still go to CR immediately.
> > >
> > > I also aligned the Turtle grammar intro more with the SPARQL spec 'cause
> > it's pretty well weathered and had a lot of useful points. (We'll probably
> > want to strike "6 In signed numbers, no white space is allowed between the
> > sign and the number." if folks agree that it's not helpful to the Turtle
> > spec, but stuff like identifying tokens and case sensitivity is a good
> > idea.)
> > >
> > > BTW, we don't need the At-risk that we discussed for the { <s> <p> <o>
> > ;;; . } decision as it was present in the LC grammar.
> > > --
> > > -ericP
> > >
> >
> >

-- 
-ericP

Received on Saturday, 5 January 2013 17:14:49 UTC