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

Re: URI Template experience

From: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 19:46:18 +0200
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>
Message-id: <2BD5BCD4-124B-43B8-8EB3-3710048A6A26@mac.com>
To: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
Hi Joe, hi Roy,

sorry if this has been discussed already, i have not been able too  
follow the lists closely for a couple of months.

AFAIK, there is the idea of using URI templates in the HTTP Link  
header, which would allow the server to instruct clients how to  
construct URIs based on a set of named parameters (not sure of  
'parameter' or 'variable' should be used here).

E.g. (adapted from [1]):

	Link: <http://www.example.com/home/{userid}>; rel="home"

AFAIKT, this requires shared understanding of the property name  
between client and server. Wouldn't it be a good idea to establish a  
registry of URI template property names to support this need for  
shared understanding?

Depending on the question of course, whether a reasonable set of  
generally usable properties can be determined or if they are just too  
application specific.


[1] http://www.mnot.net/blog/2006/06/22/link


On May 22, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:

> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>  
> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I asked the question because there are a bunch of implementations  
> and if
> there was a great attraction to the current syntax beyond {foo} then  
> I wanted
> to know that. From what I can tell from the ensuing conversation  
> there is a need
> for more complex capabilities beyond {foo}, but no one is in love with
> the current
> syntax. That's good news to me because I prefer your proposed system.
>
> I can update the current draft to your proposal, or you can generate
> a draft yourself if you think that will go faster.
>
>   Thanks,
>   -joe
>
>>
>> ....Roy
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org
>
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 17:47:39 GMT

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