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

Re: URI Template experience

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 11:40:29 -0700
Message-Id: <156034F5-E693-46B3-8E64-DD4D58EB1BFF@gbiv.com>
Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>
To: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
On May 22, 2009, at 7:24 AM, 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.

I think it would go faster if we worked together on it, at least
in terms of taking turns crafting prose and implementations.  I need
to do a lot of httpbis writing as well, so having something small to
get me started again would help with focus.  So, yes, I'll make a
pass at it this weekend and send it to you for review.

Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 18:41:09 UTC

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