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

Re: URI Template experience

From: Bob Aman <bob@sporkmonger.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:03:25 -0400
Message-ID: <81c242240905191003x51a45b93u8d4b7e305eb34486@mail.gmail.com>
To: uri@w3.org
> I suspect they're less used for a variety of reasons,
> through no fault of the URI template spec.

I think someone bcc'ed me into this conversation, so I'm only just now
getting a chance to read through the rest of the thread.  I guess I'd
add that I'm with Roy and everyone else who's asking for a
simplification of the syntax.  I need the advanced functionality of
the templates, but I certainly would not object to getting that
functionality in a less complicated package.  I like where Roy was
headed with his syntax changes.  I never really liked the
{operator|argument|params} syntax, and I'd love to be able to use
something simpler.

> 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 server-side.
>
> 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.

I don't think I like that idea.  I would greatly prefer one syntax for
usage everywhere.  If the syntax, as-is, is too complex to work with
on one side or the other, then we need to fix it until it IS useful
everywhere.

Bob Aman
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 19:31:50 GMT

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