W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2008

Re: [whatwg] Proposing URI Templates for WebForms 2.0

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 19:38:58 +1100
Cc: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Jerome Louvel'" <contact@noelios.com>, <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, "'URI'" <uri@w3.org>, "'REST Discuss'" <rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Message-Id: <342E43A5-7BDD-4796-B2E2-77D0378CF7E8@mnot.net>
To: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>

On 01/11/2008, at 6:44 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:

> Mark Nottingham>> This is good and I agree that in a perfect world,  
> more
> flexibility would have been designed in from the start. However, to  
> put them
> into the mix while the machine is running is a bit more complex;  
> there needs
> to be something more compelling (there's that word again) to drive  
> adoption.
>
> Can you help me understand the comment on why "putting them into the  
> mix
> while the machine is running is a bit more complex?"  I guess I don't
> understand either "while the machine is running" part and why it is  
> more
> complex.  What about it is more complex.

Because you're not introducing your idea to a new proposal that will  
succeed or fail on its own merits; you're trying to get it into one of  
the most widely-used formats in the world. As such, the barrier to  
entry is higher; it has to be, or every idea that seems to be good  
would get in, and HTML5 would be even more incomprehensible than it is  
now.


> Mark Nottingham>> If you can find cases where someone can reuse that
> template in an unintended way -- e.g., a search engine, a client doing
> automated things, a non-traditional browser, an intermediary -- I  
> think it'd
> go a long way towards this.
>
> Hopefully the 3 examples I gave in my ealier email presents relevent  
> cases?

Sorry, but no. Each of those, as Ian says, can be implemented with a  
very simple server-side script. Yes, it's true that this requires  
somebody to write the script, but I don't think that's a big enough  
win to justify new core syntax in HTML if there isn't a constituency  
for it beating down the door.

To be clear, I'm somewhat playing devils' advocate here; I don't have  
any particular problem per se with your proposal, it's just that I'm  
wary of putting things into standards unless we're sure we need them.  
I don't (yet) hear people beating down Ian's door to include this, so  
it makes me suspicious.

OTOH I just saw a message from Paul P go by, so maybe this little  
dialogue will help whip up the masses.

*ahem*


> Mark Nottingham>> And, if you can come up with those cases, why not  
> define
> it as an extension (since it needs to be largely backwards-compatible
> anyway)?
>
> What exactly is an HTML5 extension?  Can you provide a link that  
> explains
> this?  I can't comment as to if it would be an acceptable substitute  
> until I
> know more...
>
> Mark Nottingham>> If it takes off, you can have the satisfaction of  
> seeing
> it incorporated into HTML6...
>
> Please PLEASE don't make us wait until 2032 or so for this! ;-)


I'm not the person to ask that, but frankly if you want the  
functionality, go ahead and write the software, publish the site,  
release the browser plug-in; the standards will follow if the minds do.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 08:39:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:41 GMT