- From: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:46:01 -0500
- To: <uri@w3.org>
Hello all: I've been using URI Templates to create a proof of concept for something I'm working on, and I've run into some roadblocks. Hence, I'd like to propose some additions: 1.) Multiple optional values: http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag1,frag2,frag3} This example would support any on the following URLs: http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag1} http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag2} http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag3} Someone looking critically at this proposal might say to me "You don't need that, you already have the ability by listing each seperately." However, while true, doing so with a complex collection of URLs is conceptually unworkable. In my use-cases, it could require more than an order of magnitude more already complex templates which exceeds (my limited) mental capacity to manage them. 2.) Assuming #1, there is then the need for literal values: http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag1,frag2,'foo','bar'} This example would support any on the following URLs: http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag1} http://www.example.com/index,htm#{frag2} http://www.example.com/index,htm#foo http://www.example.com/index,htm#bar I will be moving ahead and using them in my implementation because I really can't move forward without them. I am hoping to convince the contributors to URI Templates that this is a needed addition, or a least open debate and potential discovery of an optional approach that would address the same issue. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org/
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 20:46:16 UTC