- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:15:36 -0700
- To: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
- CC: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, uri@w3.org
E.g. embedding a URI Template within a URI is quite nasty: http://bitworking.org/projects/URI-Templates/s/explain.cgi?t=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fnotebook%2Ffeeds%2F%7BuserID%7D%7B%3C%2Fnotebooks%2F%7CnotebookID%7D%7B%3F%2F-%2F%7Ccategories%7D%7B%26%2F%7Ccategories%7D%3F%7B%2C%26%7Cupdated-min%2Cupdated-max%2Calt%2Cstart-index%2Cmax-results%2CentryID%2Corderby%7D If we can find <op> identifiers that only require a minimal amount of escaping, then we should use them, but the top priority needs to be the overall syntax and function of the template and not on how easy it is to embed templates in various formats. - James John Kemp wrote: > [snip] > I agree (mildly) with this, but how far should we go - is it OK to leave > it at XML languages, or are there other document formats that are likely > to contain URI templates which we'd expect to have to play nicely with? > > - John > >> Marc. >> >> --- >> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> >> CTO Office, Sun Microsystems. >> >> >> > > >
Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 16:15:49 UTC