- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:45:51 -0700
- To: Marc Portier <marc.portier@gmail.com>
- Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>
On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:58 PM, Marc Portier wrote:
> Hi Roy,
>
> Haven't got the time yet to update the js implementation, but wanted to already give some feedback on a first read...
>
> [general]
> It surely gives a simplified and more natural first impression then previous iteration. But I should probably get into the implementation details before re-asserting that.
>
>
> [section 1.2]
> * The Level 2 examples already use {x}, so I guess you should add it in the section of defined variables: x := "1024"
I've changed the example to use var instead.
> * The Level 3 examples contain a glitch I think:
> {+path,x}/here should expand to /foo/bar1024/here
> and not /foo/bar/1024/here
Fixed.
>
> * The Level 4 examples all expand {keys} to a bigger structural content then provided in the variable-definition section
>
> I suppose it should be keys := [("semi", ";"),("dot","."),("comma","'")]
> (comma is not in the definition, but it is in all expansions)
Oops, thanks.
> [section 3.2.4]
> * samples are not using the .-dot-prefix label expansion, but the simple string expansion
>
> [section 3.2.5]
> * similar: samples are not using the /-slash-prefix path expansion
More paste-o's. Fixed.
> And one comment of a less serious nature:
>
> [section 1]
> * somehow
> http://example.com/search?q=chien&lang=fr
> makes more sense then
> http://example.com/search?q=dog&lang=fr
Huh, I could have sworn that I already did that last year.
I even remember looking it up. Thanks for the careful read,
....Roy
Received on Friday, 15 July 2011 17:48:25 UTC