- 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