- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:52:57 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, mjb@asplake.co.uk, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
On Feb 25, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> No, but tomorrow is as good a time as any. Do you have any suggested
> changes? How about updates to the author/editor information?
>
> http://uri-templates.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/spec/
>
> draft-gregorio-uritemplate.xml
>
Some feedback on the latest:
Section 1.1
"A URI Template provides both a structural description of a URI space
and, when variable values are provided, a simple instruction on how
to construct URIs corresponding to each of those values."
Very minor but I found this a little confusing wrt to cardinality of URIs and variable values, suggest replacing with:
"A URI Template provides both a structural description of a URI space
and, when variable values are provided, a simple instruction on how
to construct a URI corresponding to those values."
Section 1.2
Table rows 3.3 and 3.4 - What happens for {list}, {keys} ? Should {list} could be expanded as val1,val2,val3 ?
Table row 3.5 - What happens for {;list} ? By analogy to the ? operator I'd expect it to result in ;list=val1,val2,val3 ? Do we also need to support {;list*} and {;list+} ? Same question applies to expectations for {;keys}.
Table row 3.6 - Is the ?list.1=val1&list.2=val2 style of expansion common enough to warrant the special + modifier ?
For 3.6-3.8 I think the * form is the most common so I'd suggest swapping the meaning. E.g.
{/list} => /val1/val2/val3
{/list*} => /val1,val2,val3
Marc.
Received on Friday, 26 February 2010 16:53:36 UTC