- 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
>
>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