- 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