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

Re: URI Templates: done or dead?

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:39:06 -0700
Message-Id: <6D6EDE56-91FD-498D-9978-B7C2528BDF13@gbiv.com>
Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.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>
To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>

On Sep 16, 2008, at 4:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> John Cowan wrote:
>> Phillips, Addison scripsit:
>>> We have pretty good knowledge of what makes a good Unicode
>>> identifier. If we're going to assign variable names in a new pattern
>>> language, why are we limiting it to alphanum? The software we are
>>> linking to (the part generating the variables that get  
>>> substituted in)
>>> may not--indeed probably does not--have that same limitation.
>> Given that URIs are ASCII-only, I think it is sufficient to have
>> identifiers be ASCII-only too.
>
> Actually, I thought they were opaque bytestreams wrapped in ASCII,  
> e.g.
> %80 or %FF in a URI should be valid in the resource path, no?

Yes, so one answer would be to allow percent-encoded-UTF-8 in the
variable names as well.  That would address the issue of external
field names being non-ASCII without introducing the horror of
non-octet-based name comparisons.

....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 23:39:58 UTC

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