W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2009

Re: URI Template experience

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 14:38:34 -0700
Message-Id: <7B28DCC4-BFAB-4BC3-9C96-7B37BF196349@gbiv.com>
Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>
To: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
On May 18, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:

> It's been a while since the URI Template draft has been updated, and
> in the interim
> there has been some implementation experience:
>
>    http://blog.springsource.com/2009/03/08/rest-in-spring-3-mvc/
>    http://code.google.com/p/uri-templates/wiki/Implementations
>
> In the intervening months two things have happened:
>
> 1. In all the URI Template examples I've seen, only the simplest  
> case {foo} has
>    even been shown.
>
> 2. I've been repeatedly asked about "going the other way", i.e.  
> parsing URIs
>    based on templates.
>
> This leads to two questions:
>
> 1. Are there any real-world uses of the more complex URI Templates, or
> is {foo} enough?
>
> 2. *If* the syntax is simplified to {foo} there is an opportunity to
> support the parsing
>    case, ala http://bitworking.org/projects/1812/wsgidispatcher.html
>     Is that of interest to anyone?

Hi Joe,

Your question implies that the features in the current draft are
somehow dependent on the extent to which the current draft has
been implemented in the wild.  I think that is backwards, since
the draft received many comments and did not change as a result.
For example,

http://www.w3.org/mid/07109D44-233D-42F3-ACB0-56B4A6562903@gbiv.com

So, the answer to your question is that implementors are patiently
waiting (perhaps too patiently) for the draft to be updated.
Would it help if I issued a draft with the alternative syntax?

....Roy
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 21:39:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:42 GMT