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

Re: URI Template experience

From: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 14:38:32 -0400
Message-ID: <3f1451f50905231138p4403bc1flb5ef6c2dbcf95945@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Jan Algermissen
<algermissen1971@mac.com> wrote:
> 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?

I'm suspicious of registries to begin with, and in this case even if I
were supportive, I
believe a registry would be far outside the scope of the URI Template
specification.

   -joe

>
> 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
>>
>
>



-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 18:39:07 GMT

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