- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:49:06 -0700
- To: Robbie Gates <robbie@m8s.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Sep 5, 2011, at 12:54 AM, Robbie Gates wrote:
> i am having trouble reconciling some of the examples in the 06 draft
> with both the descriptions of the expansions and the sample
> implementation.
>
> The first set hinge on the handling of expansions where named (in the
> sense of the table in appendix A) is true. The variable list has the
> list value ["red", "green", "blue"]. The example expansions are:
>
> {;list} ;list=red,green,blue
> {;list*} ;red;green;blue
> {?list} ?list=red,green,blue
> {?list*} ?list=red&list=green&list=blue
> {&list} &list=red,green,blue
> {&list*} &list=red&list=green&list=blue
>
> I don't understand why the expansions of ? and & include list= for
> each entry when exploded. The description of the handling for the case
> of an exploded list makes no mention of the use of the name, and there
> is no separate section (as there is for the unexploded case). Also,
> the table makes ; the same as ? and & for named, and yet their
> handling appears different. The descriptions in 3.2.7 and 3.2.8 /
> 3.2.9 are likewise similar. In short, i can't see why the examples
> differ, given the rest of the document, i was expecting
>
> {?list*} ?red&green&blue
> {&list*} &red&green&blue
Hi Robbie,
Yes, you are right -- that is a bug in the new algorithms that
I added for draft 06. I'll work on a fix.
> The second case is the examples for the variable foo with string value
> "That's right!"
>
> {foo} That%27s%20right%21
> {+foo} That%27s%20right!
> {#foo} #That%27s%20right!
>
> As far as i can see, the single quote character between the t and the
> s is in sub-delims (in section 1.5) between & and (. I don't
> understand why it is treated differently to ! which is also in
> sub-delims. I would have expected these last two expansions to be:
>
> {+foo} That's%20right!
> {#foo} #That's%20right!
>
> since both + and # have allow U+R, and ', ! (but not space) are
> sub-delims and hence reserved.
Yep, another bug -- I really should check my own standards first.
Thanks for the careful review,
....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 22:49:38 UTC