Re: URI Template experience

> 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