- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 08 Mar 2002 18:02:13 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 09:43, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>
> I'm agnostic about the particular representation, but I
> think it is important that we have a single canonical representation
> for literals in NTriples, and that it is extensible (should
> we decide we need something more in literal structures).
We decided we don't need something more.
RDF 1.0 syntax isn't extensible; hence n-triples
need not be.
Please don't make n-triples out to be more than it is.
> It could be
>
> (0,"35",en)
> 0-"35"-en
> whatever
>
> But preferably not either
>
> "35"-en
> or xml("<b>foo</b>",en)
I accept that as your preference. But both
syntaxes are equally "canonical"; i.e. each
corresponds 1-1 with what we want to say.
And we have a lot invested in the "24"
syntax (a hundred or so test cases).
I don't see any reason to throw
it away.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 19:02:06 UTC