- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:20:54 -0400
- To: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
- Cc: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, uri@w3.org
On Oct 26, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
> On 10/26/07, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@sun.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2007, at 1:14 AM, Manger, James H wrote:
>>>
>>> The syntax is XML-friendly compared to Joe's. Joe's uses < > and &,
>>> which require escaping in XML -- making templates more awkward to
>>> read and write. < and > are already used as delimiters in HTTP
>>> headers, particularly the proposed Link-Template header. There may
>>> not be a clash if < and > only appear inside {…} within a template,
>>> but it adds some confusion.
>>>
>> IMO, this is an important consideration. I think its highly likely
>> that templates will be embedded in XML documents and having to
>> escape/
>> unescape delimiters in templates will be a pain.
>
> This is a non issue.
>
> Even if the <op>'s are changed to something more XML 'friendly'
> you still have to escape because <arg> may contain & and ',
> so you still have to escape. Also, let's look at the bigger picture:
>
> & and ' are legal characters in URIs, not even URI Templates,
> and are "problematic" for XML.
> ; is legal and sure to cause problems in SQL.
> { and } will cause issues with many templating engines.
>
> This is why XML, SQL and templating engines have escaping rules.
>
I respectfully disagree. Even though a URI *may* contain problematic
characters that isn't a good justification for using <op>'s that
*will* require escaping. I'd like URI templates to be (at least
somewhat) readable and choosing <op> characters that will always have
to be escaped when used in XML seems masochistic in this regard.
Marc.
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 15:21:57 UTC