Re: URI Templates - optional variables?

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
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 12:46:47 UTC