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

RE: URI Template experience

From: Jerome Louvel <jerome.louvel@noelios.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:22:49 +0200
To: "'Robert Brewer'" <fumanchu@aminus.org>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "'Joe Gregorio'" <joe@bitworking.org>, "'URI'" <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001201c9d852$a07db2c0$e1791840$@louvel@noelios.com>
Hi all,


It would useful to restructure the draft to separate the minimal syntax that
would be mandatory to support and that would work both on client-side and


Then, we could add an optional part defining a more extensive syntax,
suitable for client-side usage. I also suspect, that a third part defining
extension for server-side URI templates would be useful.


Our experience so far with Restlet is that the simpler syntax is sufficient
for most cases. When customization of what a variable should match is
needed, we handle that via the Java API and people seem quite happy with



Best regards,
Jerome Louvel
Restlet ~ Founder and Lead developer ~  <http://www.restlet.org/>
Noelios Technologies ~ Co-founder ~  <http://www.noelios.com/>





De : uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] De la part de Robert
Envoyé : mardi 19 mai 2009 05:10
À : Roy T. Fielding
Cc : Joe Gregorio; URI
Objet : Re: URI Template experience


Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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

Much of which I stole and stuck into
http://www.aminus.org/rbre/shoji/shoji-draft-01.txt, which is being used
to run http://parachutes.org/api/browser for one. Why not push ahead
with that? Given the dearth of complexity in implementations of URI
Templates, I'd much prefer the simpler syntax you proposed there. Make
it simple enough, and regexes for dispatching on the server fall out
quite nicely.

Robert Brewer
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 07:23:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:13 UTC