W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Uri Templates: Questions on draft-gregorio-uritemplate-06

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:49:06 -0700
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <366A47E4-FE6A-4D8C-85F8-276312F03BEA@gbiv.com>
To: Robbie Gates <robbie@m8s.org>
On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:54 AM, Robbie Gates wrote:

> i am having trouble reconciling some of the examples in the 06 draft
> with both the descriptions of the expansions and the sample
> implementation.
> The first set hinge on the handling of expansions where named (in the
> sense of the table in appendix A) is true. The variable list has the
> list value ["red", "green", "blue"]. The example expansions are:
>        {;list}        ;list=red,green,blue
>        {;list*}        ;red;green;blue
>        {?list}        ?list=red,green,blue
>        {?list*}        ?list=red&list=green&list=blue
>        {&list}        &list=red,green,blue
>        {&list*}        &list=red&list=green&list=blue
> I don't understand why the expansions of ? and & include list= for
> each entry when exploded. The description of the handling for the case
> of an exploded list makes no mention of the use of the name, and there
> is no separate section (as there is for the unexploded case). Also,
> the table makes ; the same as ? and & for named, and yet their
> handling appears different. The descriptions in 3.2.7 and 3.2.8 /
> 3.2.9 are likewise similar. In short, i can't see why the examples
> differ, given the rest of the document, i was expecting
>        {?list*}        ?red&green&blue
>        {&list*}        &red&green&blue

Hi Robbie,

Yes, you are right -- that is a bug in the new algorithms that
I added for draft 06.  I'll work on a fix.

> The second case is the examples for the variable foo with string value
> "That's right!"
>        {foo}        That%27s%20right%21
>        {+foo}        That%27s%20right!
>        {#foo}        #That%27s%20right!
> As far as i can see, the single quote character between the t and the
> s is in sub-delims (in section 1.5) between & and (. I don't
> understand why it is treated differently to ! which is also in
> sub-delims. I would have expected these last two expansions to be:
>        {+foo}        That's%20right!
>        {#foo}        #That's%20right!
> since both + and # have allow U+R, and ', ! (but not space) are
> sub-delims and hence reserved.

Yep, another bug -- I really should check my own standards first.

Thanks for the careful review,

Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 22:49:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:15 UTC