- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:38:46 +0100
- To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
I've managed to update the document http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/ntriples/ with the notation changes you previously described, and with the issues you have brought up, along with some solutions. >>>Graham Klyne said: <snip/> > If you want to stick with just US-ASCII in an N-triples file then I won't > fight it, but my own feeling is that it would be easier to just > say: always use UTF-8 encoding. That seems fairly future-proof. I don't mind saying N-Triples is UTF-8 since I've got code around to do that and it comes for free with Java and Python for example. However it just moves the escaping to a different level and makes it impossible for anyone to generate unicode characters with plain text (ASCII that is) editors. Dave said: > >How about just one escape \UXXXXXXXX for all chars not made available > >by \-escapes or used in-situ - that seems more appealing for this > >little syntax. Graham said: > Well, that could work too. Yes, but is it better than my other suggestions? I've listed all the suggestions in the updated doc. > > > 5. eoln format <snip/> Graham said: > I suppose, then, we must go back to allowing CRLF, LF or CR as a line > break, to be compatible with anything that can be served via HTTP. which was actually where I started in the first version, Doh! Dave
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2001 11:38:47 UTC