- From: Bob Aman <bob@sporkmonger.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 15:33:33 -0400
- To: URI <uri@w3.org>
- Cc: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
>>> AFAIKT, this requires shared understanding of the property name between
>>> client and server. Wouldn't it be a good idea to establish a registry of
>>> URI
>>> template property names to support this need for shared understanding?
>>
>> I'm suspicious of registries to begin with,
>> and in this case even if I
>> were supportive, I
>> believe a registry would be far outside the scope of the URI Template
>> specification.
>
> Yes. Another point though is a potential mapping of the property names to
> URIs so client implementations could be coded using these URIs instead of
> the short names. What do you think about baking into the draft a proposed
> way for the client to find the mapping? E.g.
>
> Link: <http://www.example.com/home/{userid}>; rel="home"
> Link: <http://www.example.com/property-mapping}>;
> rel="templatePropertyMapping"
>
> Thinking about it, the specification of the link relation would do - no
> 'need' to put it into the draft.
I'm with Joe on this one... Registries are suspicious, this one in
particular. Beyond that, this seems quite tangential to the rest of
the draft, and I don't think it belongs within it.
-1.
Bob Aman
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 19:34:08 UTC