W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2006

Re: uri-template: optional template parameters?

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:35:55 +0000
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <W780819354234501163608555@mail.mailsnare.net>

>
>This kind of convention isn't actually used in template processing;  
>it's more in line with a "URI Schema Language." I.e., to a template  
>processor, the template below has a variable "startPage?" (note the  
>question mark's inclusion), and if there's a variable with that name,  
>it'll get interpolated; if not, it won't. The same behaviour would be  
>seen from a template named "foo", "bar" or  anything else; it's all  
>opaque to a generic URI template processor.
>

Ah, OK, but I gathered from reading the spec that this was a URI schema 
language.  I didn't think there was such a thing as a generic URI template 
processor.  The problem I'm having is previous discussion convinced me that 
something like this is inappropriate:

[1] http://example.com/{some/path}/file

But what if I want /path/ to be optional?  Your answer leaves me with this 
example from the spec:

[2] http://example.com/{e}/ 
[3] http://example.com//

But what I want is this:

[4] http://example.com/some/file

Not:

[5] http://example.com/some//file

Perhaps the examples [2] and [3] could be changed, such that the trailing 
slash of an empty segment is removed, if adding the "?" won't do...

-Eric
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 18:37:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:10 UTC