- From: Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:56:29 +0200
- To: uri@w3.org
* Bob Aman <bob@sporkmonger.com> [2009-05-19 21:35]: > > It would useful to restructure the draft to separate the > > minimal syntax that would be mandatory to support and that > > would work both on client-side and server-side. > > > > Then, we could add an optional part defining a more extensive > > syntax, suitable for client-side usage. I also suspect, that > > a third part defining extension for server-side URI templates > > would be useful. > > I don't think I like that idea. Me either. > I would greatly prefer one syntax for usage everywhere. If the > syntax, as-is, is too complex to work with on one side or the > other, then we need to fix it until it IS useful everywhere. Agreed. The less variance, the better. For something that might, among other things, basically supplant `<form>` for programmatic clients on the web, with the implied breadth of adoption, the #1 goal should be relentless simplicity. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 19:59:01 UTC