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

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

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