- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 23:54:12 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, uri@w3.org
Am 26.12.2006 um 23:00 schrieb Mark Nottingham: > On 2006/12/27, at 3:26 AM, Joe Gregorio wrote: >> "First let's dispel the notion that you can come up with >> the perfect URI-Template to URI translation mechanism >> that will always produce a valid URI regardless of the scheme. " > > I don't want perfect; I'd settle for "not horribly broken." You seem to settle in down there quite nicely - all the best. >> On the other hand, allowing the template designer a choice in how >> the value >> is encoded seems like an interesting idea. I worry, as usual, that >> the results will be way too complex to be adopted, but let's turn it >> into a concrete proposal and see how far it goes. > > Your proposal puts the encoding information into the variable name. > That's one option, but I'm reluctant to encourage putting this kind > of thing in there, as it encourages URI Templates to become URI > Schemas, and they'll quickly become unreadable. Encoding is by no > means the last thing we'll want to associate with a particular > variable. Would it make sense to seperate the uri template specification from any (python API) implementation? In the posts I get the feeling that people treat them as the very same. Is that necessary? I personally lack context-of-use of these template to make any judgement on that. Cheers, Stefan
Received on Tuesday, 26 December 2006 22:54:30 UTC