Add sentence on names not valid as Python IDs.

[tombaker]

Fixes #1233

Proposed Changes

• Add sentence pointing out that name strings may be valid for use in an RDF namespace but not valid as Python identifiers (e.g., "1234" because it starts with a digit) and must therefore be addressed with the "item" syntax (as illustrated in the example above).

This point is currently made as a brief in-line comment to a line in the code example, but the fact that name strings may be valid for RDF but not as Python identifiers deserves to be made more explicitly.

[white-gecko]

Sounds like a good idea

[nicholascar]

Thanks @tombaker! Always a pleasure to fold in more documentation.

The PR is approved but it seems we may have a technical Travis issue so we will merge it in as soon as that's resolved. Online documentation will update only with the next RDFlib release which is due in a month or two.

[white-gecko]

As this is a documentation issue, we don't need the CI here, right?

[tombaker]

On 2021-02-05 04:30, Nicholas Car wrote: Thanks @tombaker! Always a pleasure to fold in more documentation.

Thank you @nicholascar! I will look for other places where a sentence here or there could make rdflib easier to use.

[nicholascar]

As this is a documentation issue, we don't need the CI here, right?

In this case yes but of course some documentation affects the doctests, so we can't always make this call..