- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 16:40:33 +1100
- To: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jerome Louvel <contact@noelios.com>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, URI <uri@w3.org>, REST Discuss <rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
I missed the second link, which does contain examples; apologies. The benefits you're talking about seem to be all related to having more flexibility in specifying URIs from forms. This is good and I agree that in a perfect world, more flexibility would have been designed in from the start. However, to put them into the mix while the machine is running is a bit more complex; there needs to be something more compelling (there's that word again) to drive adoption. If you can find cases where someone can reuse that template in an unintended way -- e.g., a search engine, a client doing automated things, a non-traditional browser, an intermediary -- I think it'd go a long way towards this. I can't think of any at the moment, but that's likely just evidence of my imagination's limits at this point in time. And, if you can come up with those cases, why not define it as an extension (since it needs to be largely backwards-compatible anyway)? If it takes off, you can have the satisfaction of seeing it incorporated into HTML6... Cheers, On 01/11/2008, at 4:24 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > I didn't see any use cases in the original e-mail; did I miss > something? An example or two tends to focus discussion well... > > Cheers, > > > On 01/11/2008, at 12:59 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote: > >> Mark>> compelling use cases for this, but we haven't seen those yet >> AFAIK. >> >> What classifies as a "compelling use-case" in your mind? >> >> -Mike Schinkel >> President; NewClarity LLC >> Organizer: Atlanta Web Entrepreneurs >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeschinkel >> http://twitter.com/mikeschinkel >> http://mikeschinkel.com >> http://atlanta-web.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: uri-request@w3.org [mailto:uri-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of >> Mark >> Nottingham >> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 6:38 PM >> To: Ian Hickson >> Cc: Jerome Louvel; whatwg@lists.whatwg.org; uri@w3.org; >> rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [whatwg] Proposing URI Templates for WebForms 2.0 >> >> >> +1, although I'd say it a bit differently. >> >> Doing it in script precludes unintended reuse, e.g., for >> accessibility, >> search engines, and so forth; it's not a good solution >> *if* there are compelling use cases for this, but we haven't seen >> those yet >> AFAIK. >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> On 29/10/2008, at 6:20 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> >>> >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Jerome Louvel wrote: >>>> >>>> Even though the URI template RFC is not finalized yet, we already >>>> have a complete support for it, on the server-side, in the Restlet >>>> framework. >>>> We happily use them for our URI-based routing and I think they >>>> add a >>>> lot of expressiveness while keeping a simple syntax. Usage example: >>>> http://www.restlet.org/tutorial#part11 >>>> >>>> They are also supported in WADL, the RESTful description language, >>>> and in the OpenSearch specification. Extending their usage to HTML >>>> forms sounds like a logical and useful step. >>> >>> It seems to me like URI templates can be trivially done from script >>> and from the server side already; given the poor >>> backwards-compatibility story of URI templates, what do we gain from >>> adding it to the language? >>> >>> -- >>> Ian Hickson U+1047E ) >>> \._.,--....,'``. fL >>> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _ >>> \ ;`._ ,. >>> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'-- >>> (,_..'`-.;.' >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 05:41:16 UTC