- From: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:36:19 -0500
- To: "Mike Schinkel" <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On 12/22/06, Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com> wrote: > Wonderful analysis Joe; you definitely have a gift for explaining complex > subjects. Thank you. > Regarding the possibilities, is there not the possibility of a #4? To me #4 > would be defining rules on a scheme basis, and tackle the known schemes that > are of most concern for this proposal at the moment? That was the very first option I laid out in my analysis, to either be general and admit we don't cover every case, or to proceed on a scheme-by-scheme basis. > Also, could you not have different rules for authority vs. path+etc? Those > are well-known distinctions that are easily parsable. In the == Serenedipity == section of my analysis I point out that with some restrictions on the characters allowed in template names that you could break up a URI Template into scheme, authority, path, query, and fragment and thus process each of those differently. -joe -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
Received on Tuesday, 26 December 2006 19:36:31 UTC