- 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