W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2008

path to daylight? for foo-templates in web markup [was: Re: [whatwg] Proposing URI Templates ...]

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 19:37:01 -0400
Message-Id: <FF2F6B93-B735-4513-989E-C57694F3A372@IEEE.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, URI <uri@w3.org>, REST Discuss <rest-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
To: Mike Schinkel <mikeschinkel@gmail.com>, Jerome Louvel <contact@noelios.com>

On 1 Nov 2008, at 8:27 AM, Mike Schinkel wrote:

> Mark Nottingham>> Of course; the point I was trying to make is that  
> avoiding
> a roundtrip isn't going to motivate a whole new technology, at  
> least one
> that's so specialised.
> It really doesn't seem to be that specialized to me. URLs are used
> ubiquitously, and a widespread implementation of URI Templates such  
> as in
> HTML5 could empower the use of URI Templates in so many different  
> contexts
> where they would have value.

For a community that's sold on pattern templates and a design based  
on a broader application thereof, look at the use of Attribute Value  
Templates in

Content Selection for Device Independence

If you were to do your applications in cselection+foo (a profile  
known as DIAL) with all the pattern-driven structure in them, and  
serve them first through a DI engine that downcasts to whatever  
passes for HTML of date, then at least for the disabled consumers who  
had the services of a trained content-adaptor (on their client  
machines) they could send you a "source, please" request and you  
would know that your templates were in coping hands.  This affords a  
possible migration path to wider uptake if personalization processing  
gradually becomes a must have for browsers through popular demand as  
it leaks out of the niches where the early adopters live.

To catch up on where this community is with this idea and where
they are going, check out


(member link; if you don't have W3C Member access I'll ask the author
to contact y'all)


> As an aside, I'm beginning to understand that the people who get their
> concerns addressed in the WG are the ones with the most stamina. :)
>>> If you define it as declarative markup and implement it for the  
>>> browsing
> case with JavaScript, non-JS clients (e.g., robots) can still use the
> declarative markup, if they're aware of it.
> True, but the point is that nobody is going to code something when the
> number of those aware of it are <1% given that w/o Javascript it isn't
> possible to do it any other way.
>>> Carl Cargill did a good job in "Open Systems Standardization":
> Very cool, it's on order. Thanks.
> -Mike
Received on Saturday, 1 November 2008 23:37:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:51 UTC