W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2007

Re: URI Templates - optional variables?

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:46:50 -0700
Message-ID: <4713C3AA.2050708@gmail.com>
To: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
CC: 'Stefan Eissing' <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, uri@w3.org

I would much rather define a limited core set of <op>'s that cover the
most basic and most common cases and include in that set a special <op>
code that indicates that the remainder of the token is going to be in
some application-specific or extension syntax.

For instance, we could have {`ext}, where ext is some extension syntax.


Note that the {`ext} only differs from {var} in that the application
would be expected to perform some kind of evaluation of ext as opposed
to var which is effectively just a key.

e.g., {foo}  -> map["foo"]
      {`foo} -> eval("foo")

We could also allow for something like {`{arg}|{ext}}, where {arg} is
inserted if ext evaluates to a null value or an empty list.

e.g., {`bar|foo} -> eval("foo") || "bar"

- James

Mike Schinkel wrote:
> It is funny how we keep going full circle.
> I'll throw my earlier suggestions to use a name and colon where the default
> is just {var}:
> 	{<arg|var}  ->   {prefix:var,stuff}
> 	{>arg|var}  ->   {append:var,stuff}
> 	{,arg|var}  ->    {join:var,stuff}
> 	{&arg|var}  ->   {joinlist:var,stuff} 
> Also for functions where functions could be defined by external
> extensibility mechanism (i.e. functions in Python):
> 	{func(var,stuff)} 
>> And would like to have a URI for each function. So, if I GET 
>> http:// example.org/funcs/dog?{x} I will have the same result 
>> as any template parser implementing that function does.
>> And use something like namespace uris for extension functions
>>    n -> http://example.org/extensions/  --- (where is that done?)
>>    http://example.org/{n:dog(x)}  ---  substitute function "n:dog"  
>> applied to x
>>    which should behave like GET on
>>    http://example.org/extensions/dog?{x}
> While I greatly see the necessity of having standardized mechanisms for
> identifying variables and functions, I think they should be seperated from
> the URI template spec as the URI template spec defines a single string and
> not the context in which that string operates.
> Better to define how URI Templates can be used in contexts, for example in
> WebForms
> http://blog.welldesignedurls.org/2007/01/11/proposing-uri-templates-for-webf
> orms-2/
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2006Dec/0028.html
Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 19:47:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:50 UTC