Re: URI Template experience

I somehow missed Roy's proposal (if it's out there at all) but if what's
required now is along the lines of working it into the structure of Joe's
doc, I'd be happy to do that - I'm in the very nice position of being paid
to work in the comfort of my garden for the next few weeks ;-)  I might even
manage a quick regexp-based Ruby or Python implementation.

While we're here, I'd like again to plug the provision of partial template
expansion, as found in Bob's Addressable Ruby library.  I find myself
wanting it in Joe's Python library now!  The spec could cover it (perhaps as
an optional feature) to encourage its wider implementation.

Regards,
Mike
mjb@asplake.co.uk
http://positiveincline.com
http://twitter.com/asplake


2009/6/1 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>

> Hmm... I've spent the last several months NOT asking Roy to start working
> on a Templates draft to keep him free for HTTPbis work...
>
> Oh, well ;)
>
>
>
> On 24/05/2009, at 4:40 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>  On May 22, 2009, at 7:24 AM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
>>
>>  On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Joe,
>>>>
>>>> Your question implies that the features in the current draft are
>>>> somehow dependent on the extent to which the current draft has
>>>> been implemented in the wild.  I think that is backwards, since
>>>> the draft received many comments and did not change as a result.
>>>> For example,
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/07109D44-233D-42F3-ACB0-56B4A6562903@gbiv.com
>>>>
>>>> So, the answer to your question is that implementors are patiently
>>>> waiting (perhaps too patiently) for the draft to be updated.
>>>> Would it help if I issued a draft with the alternative syntax?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I asked the question because there are a bunch of implementations and if
>>> there was a great attraction to the current syntax beyond {foo} then I
>>> wanted
>>> to know that. From what I can tell from the ensuing conversation there is
>>> a need
>>> for more complex capabilities beyond {foo}, but no one is in love with
>>> the current
>>> syntax. That's good news to me because I prefer your proposed system.
>>>
>>> I can update the current draft to your proposal, or you can generate
>>> a draft yourself if you think that will go faster.
>>>
>>
>> I think it would go faster if we worked together on it, at least
>> in terms of taking turns crafting prose and implementations.  I need
>> to do a lot of httpbis writing as well, so having something small to
>> get me started again would help with focus.  So, yes, I'll make a
>> pass at it this weekend and send it to you for review.
>>
>> ....Roy
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>