Re: Keeping PrEfIx and BaSe Proposals

On 05/29/2013 08:48 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org 
> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 05/29/2013 12:29 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:
>
>         Turtle Proposals
>
>
>     Thanks for bringing these up.
>
>
>         1. Keywords should all have the same case rules. @prefix,
>         @base and a should allow for upper-casing
>
>
>     +1
>
>
>         2. Directives should all have optional trailing periods.
>
>
>     +0.75.   I think this is right long term, but this un-aligns
>     things from SPARQL until/unless SPARQL does the same.   If we do
>     this, I'd advocate outreach to SPARQL folks suggesting they do the
>     same
>
>
>         3. Turtle should include examples of both forms of PREFIX
>         @prefix directives.
>
>
>     +1
>
>     I'd really like an explanation that the @-form is older and the
>     non-@-non-dot-form is what SPARQL uses.
>
>
>         4. Turtle serializes SHOULD output directives using the '@'
>         notation with trailing periods.
>
>
>     -0.25    Do we have any other SHOULDs about serializers?   I
>     figure that'll sort out in the pretty-printer market.
>
>     (plus, of course, I prefer the opposite advice.)
>
>
> No, but nothing else is likely to break every existing implementation. 
> Almost all the other stuff is honestly details of escaping that 
> implementations differed in already. Consider this me negotiating 
> myself down from MUST already ;)

Good point.  How about if we just state facts, saying something like: 
turtle documents using the no-@-directives will not be recognized by 
older (pre-standard) turtle consumers, so systems generating turtle 
which might be read by such systems will need to use the @-directive form.

That's basically the same as your SHOULD, but with an explanation that 
it doesn't apply in the someday-future where old turtle parsers are no 
longer a factor.

         -- Sandro

>
>
>         If there are no loud objections to these changes, will update
>         the document accordingly.
>
>         Example grammar change from gkellog:
>
>         [4] prefixID ::= '@'? [Pp][Rr][Ee][Ff][Ii][Xx] PNAME_NS IRIREF
>         "."?
>         [5] base ::= '@'? [Bb][Aa][Ss][Ee] IRIREF "."?
>
>
>     There's a lot to be said for that, yes.
>
>           -s
>
>         Cheers,
>         Gavin
>
>
>