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

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

From: Marc Portier <marc.portier@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 08:34:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4E69B364.7060007@gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: URI <uri@w3.org>

On 09-09-11 00:27, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:54 AM, Robbie Gates wrote:
>>> 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.
> Actually, after having tried a fix to the algorithm, I think it
> would be more useful to have the result you expect above (and it
> would simplify the algorithm).  That also would provide a means
> to define value-only parameters in the query component, which has
> been requested in a private discussion.

Can't say I have a problem with it, but surely the current approach has 
a very logic reason of existence, no?

Following the principle of least surprise (from a uri-template user 
point of view, not from the implementation side) I would guess the 
current expansion

{?list}    ?list=red,green,blue'
{?list*}   ?list=green&list=red&list=blue

is on the side of 80% of the expectations, no?

So at the least we make sure this keeps being possible, and (assuming we 
find a way to provide both renditions) even would be the result of the 
more naive & spontaneous use of the templates?

Of course, I do remember how I ended up finding the ;red;green;blue a 
quirk expansion compared to ;list=red;list=green;list=blue  (the 
opposite case?)

So why not think about having both just more explicit by declaring two 
kinds of 'explodes' one 'named' (*), the other 'unnamed' (% maybe?)

{?list}    ?list=red,green,blue
{?list*}   ?list=green&list=red&list=blue
{?list%}   ?green&red&blue

{;list}    ;list=red,green,blue
{;list*}   ;list=green;list=red;list=blue
{;list%}   ;green;red;blue

yielding even less surprises?


> ....Roy
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 06:34:52 UTC

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