W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > December 2006

Proposed additions to URI Templates

From: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:46:01 -0500
To: <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009501c72477$dc631e60$0702a8c0@Guides.local>

Hello all:

I've been using URI Templates to create a proof of concept for something I'm
working on, and I've run into some roadblocks. Hence, I'd like to propose
some additions:

1.) Multiple optional values:

	http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag1,frag2,frag3}

This example would support any on the following URLs:

	http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag1} 
	http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag2} 
	http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag3} 

Someone looking critically at this proposal might say to me "You don't need
that, you already have the ability by listing each seperately."  However,
while true, doing so with a complex collection of URLs is conceptually
unworkable. In my use-cases, it could require more than an order of
magnitude more already complex templates which exceeds (my limited) mental
capacity to manage them.

2.) Assuming #1, there is then the need for literal values:

	http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag1,frag2,'foo','bar'}

This example would support any on the following URLs:

	http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag1} 
	http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag2} 
	http://www.example.com/index,htm#foo
	http://www.example.com/index,htm#bar

I will be moving ahead and using them in my implementation because I really
can't move forward without them. I am hoping to convince the contributors to
URI Templates that this is a needed addition, or a least open debate and
potential discovery of an optional approach that would address the same
issue.

-- 
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 20:46:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:36 GMT