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

Re: URI Templates: { ^ prefix ^ variable [] separator | default }

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:15:36 -0700
Message-ID: <472212A8.4070802@gmail.com>
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 GMT

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