- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:01:24 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
The Turtle spec says that parsing the PNAME_NS and PNAME_LN terminals produces an IRI as defined in RDF Concepts. http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#handle-IRI http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/#handle-PNAME_LN http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-concepts-20130115/#dfn-iri RDF Concepts says that IRI is "a Unicode string [UNICODE] that conforms to the syntax defined in RFC 3987 [RFC3987]." In sum, we provide a pretty liberal grammar and then point to a hilariously complex grammar, but don't expect anyone to enforce it. Comments c23 "IRIREF production less restrictive than RFC3987" and c26 "PN_CHARS_BASE outside of IRI range" indicate some frustration with our grammar which permits characters which aren't allowed anywhere in IRIs. <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments#c23> <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments#c26> One approach would be to trim the bogus chars off of PN_CHARS_BASE and include a note below the grammer which points directly at 3987 and states that the IRIs constructed by either IRIREF or PNAME_LN are 3987 IRIs. This would would supplement the note about valid literal ranges proposed to address c27. <http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Turtle_Candidate_Recommendation_Comments#c27> <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130324145153.GN14139@w3.org> I have spoken to those acting as W3C director. They consider this to be a clarification and nothing that would require another LC. -- -ericP
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:01:53 UTC