- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:46:23 +0200
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, URI <uri@w3.org>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
Am 16.10.2007 um 03:47 schrieb Roy T. Fielding: > On Oct 15, 2007, at 6:03 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> On 16/10/2007, at 10:11 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> >>> I think it is critical to limit the potential operations to >>> typical string operations, both for simplicity of implementation >>> and also for our capacity to understand the template without >>> needing to refer to external rules or processing. There is no >>> reason to have URI templates if we don't limit them to a >>> declarative syntax >> >> Agreed; I didn't mean to imply anything else. My concern was more >> that we'd be able to cover the diversity of use cases we've heard >> about (much less hadn't come across yet) with a reasonably-sized >> library of operators in one go. > > I was actually responding to Stefan's suggestion that we include > function names for arbitrarily namespaced actions. If we are trying > to solve a declarative problem, we need to stick to self-descriptive > solutions. I can accept that. However I see as consequence that extension to the "self-descriptive" solution would be counter-productive. That means the predefined set should be quite complete. Ceterum censeo: in my view the templates would benefit from an easier readable syntax. -- Stefan Eissing <green/>bytes GmbH Hafenweg 16 D-48155 Münster Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 12:46:47 UTC