Feedback on draft-gregorio-uritemplate-00

Hi Joe/Mark/Marc/David,

I think this goes into the right direction. Congratulations.

The main issue I see is that the spec doesn't seem to have a position on 
what to do with values that contain non-URI friendly character 
sequences. For instance, in 
<http://bitworking.org/projects/URI-Templates/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-00.html#rfc.section.4.2.p.2> 
you say:

"If the value of a template variable would conflict with a reserved 
character's purpose as a delimiter, then the conflicting data must be 
percent-encoded before substitution."

However, in 
<http://bitworking.org/projects/URI-Templates/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-00.html#rfc.section.4.3> 
we see:

+++++++++++
The following are examples of URI Template expansions that are not legal.

     Name                                Value
     ------------------------------------------------------------
     a                                   fred barney
     b                                   %

The following URI Templates are expanded with the given values and do 
not produce legal URIs.

     http://example.org/{a}
     http://example.org/fred barney

     http://example.org/{b}/
     http://example.org/%/
+++++++++++

..although I would have assumed that "http://example.org/{b}/"  should 
have been expanded to "http://example.org/%25/" according to Section 4.2...



My other feedback is mainly editorial/formal...:

Content:

- Section 4.3: in the examples: "scheme" != "schema"


Editorial:

- Superfl. whitespace in "machine- readable" and "well- known"

- Spell out "interoperability" instead of "interop"

- Outdated references RFC2234 (-> RFC4234) and RFC2717 (-> RFC4395)

- In first sentence of Section 4, the internal ref seems to lack a ", 
see ..."

- when citing RFC3986, it would be nice when the concrete section number 
was given (several places)

- Section 4.3: maybe make that use an xml2rfc texttable element


Formal:

- I think the xml2rfc docName shouldn't contain the extension "txt"

- I've never seen "individual" as an org name in an IETF document; 
leaving it out instead seems to be the agreed-upon way to do it...



Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 5 October 2006 13:54:52 UTC