- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 12:02:18 +0000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, barstow@w3.org
>>>Bjoern Hoehrmann said: > * Dave Beckett wrote: > >These changes have been folded into > > http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/ > > I'd still prefer to have a sole definition for N-Triples outside this > specification, probably together with a formal specification of > Notation3 (see my "Notation3 woes" [1]), but ok... We aren't really worrying about the document structure at this time (1st working draft) so N-Triples may be in a another document later. Although N-Triples is a subset of Notation3, Notation3 is a different semantic web research language, which is still changing, and the authors are pretty friendly, so let them know. > I still wonder whether N-Triple documents are considered to actually be > written by humans or a plain RDF serialization format. If the former, > I'd strongly recommend to allow usage of other encodings then US-ASCII. > Note that if transferred via HTTP, those .nt files would need a > Content-Type like > > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii > > since ommitted charset parameters on text/* types imply ISO-8859-1 as > per RFC 2616. This would violate section 3 of the draft which requires > US-ASCII. I don't know whether this is really a good idea at all. We are considering the issues about making N-Triples using only UTF-8 encoding instead of ASCII - there are pros and cons, relationships with XML Blueberry (since RDF is close to XML) and Notation3 to consider. This change will be in working draft #3 at the earliest. > Is there any special reason why \U escapes need *8* digits even if only > up to six digits are allowed? I didn't change this since, as I note above, we might remove it. > Anyway, the draft looks way better now. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Sep/0057.html Thanks. Dave
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 07:02:20 UTC