- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:19:48 +1000
- To: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
Hi all, I checked out URI templates again today. 2009/9/7 Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>: >> Now, as you can't know in advance if the server support a specific syntax >> for getting sub-resources of a specific resource, we might want to signal >> this using a URI template [1], as in that case it really sets expectations >> for the client (note that it is an example on how to advertise that a server >> would use our syntax for sub-resource). >> Comments? >> >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-03 > > I still have trouble to understand how concretely that would work. Could > you give us a *detailed* example of how the use of Gregorio's > uritemplate will work in practice? I think - after having read http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009May/0000.html and http://uri-templates.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/spec/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-03.html#anchor1 that URI templates are just a better way of specifying the structure of a URI that a server can parse. In our case it is an alternative to the BNF that we wrote, I think. So, I think we can consider eventually specifying a URI template for the different schemes that we come up with. I think there would be a template for fragments and one for queries. It will make it easier for servers to claim which format they support. It may even be usable for "advertising" what they support. Our temporal URI fragment addressing could, e.g. look like this tscheme=["npt","smpt","smpte-25","smpte-30","smpte-30-drop","clock"] http://example.org/#t={tscheme}:{tspec} {-alt | {tspec} [ , {tspec} ] | , {tspec} } Notice how I had to invent a new function called "-alt" because there is no way to specify alternatives with URI templates. Maybe the way to do it is to make two URI templates out of it. In any case, I think if somebody is keen to get the URI specification available as a URI template, they can go ahead. I don't think they add any additional value over the already existing BNF. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 20 September 2009 01:20:50 UTC