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

RE: URI Templates: done or dead?

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:16:07 -0700
To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, URI <uri@w3.org>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA014BE2CA0C@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
I disagree, but not violently enough to continue this thread. ASCII isn't that much of a restriction, I agree... but too many systems rely on *theoretical* ASCII restrictions that are ignored in practice.


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:42 PM
> To: Phillips, Addison
> Cc: John Cowan; Roy T. Fielding; Mark Nottingham; URI; Joe Gregorio;
> David Orchard; Marc Hadley
> Subject: Re: URI Templates: done or dead?
> Phillips, Addison scripsit:
> > However, my point is that the variable names themselves (the
> "key" side)
> > are not necessarily restricted to "ASCII only" in real life...
> the
> > programming language may be JS, perl, python, Java, etc., which
> > permit non-ASCII variable names or keys.
> I should think that actual implementations will not, in most cases,
> have access to variable names in the underlying programming
> language,
> but will accept a map/hash/dictionary containing name-value pairs.
> It's not much of a restriction to require these names to be ASCII
> (I realize I'm being a Neanderthal here), and it makes it easy to
> explain the character repertoire of URI Templates:  ASCII in, ASCII
> out.
> --
> John Cowan   cowan@ccil.org   http://ccil.org/~cowan

> I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the
> British
> Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the
> sentence
> of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1.  I
> doubt if
> the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a
> sentence of
> equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ,
> 1940
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 23:16:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:12 UTC