W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2007

Re: URI Templates - optional variables?

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:46:23 +0200
Message-Id: <261FB1DC-C48C-4620-9BB6-2C7BF27A5B56@greenbytes.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, URI <uri@w3.org>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>


Am 16.10.2007 um 03:47 schrieb Roy T. Fielding:

> On Oct 15, 2007, at 6:03 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 16/10/2007, at 10:11 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>>> I think it is critical to limit the potential operations to
>>> typical string operations, both for simplicity of implementation
>>> and also for our capacity to understand the template without
>>> needing to refer to external rules or processing.  There is no
>>> reason to have URI templates if we don't limit them to a
>>> declarative syntax
>>
>> Agreed; I didn't mean to imply anything else. My concern was more  
>> that we'd be able to cover the diversity of use cases we've heard  
>> about (much less hadn't come across yet) with a reasonably-sized  
>> library of operators in one go.
>
> I was actually responding to Stefan's suggestion that we include
> function names for arbitrarily namespaced actions.  If we are trying
> to solve a declarative problem, we need to stick to self-descriptive
> solutions.

I can accept that. However I see as consequence that extension to the  
"self-descriptive" solution would be counter-productive. That means  
the predefined set should be quite complete.

Ceterum censeo: in my view the templates would benefit from an easier  
readable syntax.

--
Stefan Eissing

<green/>bytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16
D-48155 Münster
Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 12:46:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:37 GMT