- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:29:21 -0700
- To: Marc Portier <marc.portier@gmail.com>
- Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>
On Sep 8, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Marc Portier wrote:
> Can't say I have a problem with it, but surely the current approach has a very logic reason of existence, no?
The original was a bit of a coin toss. Although it looks more consistent with
forms syntax to do
> {?list} ?list=red,green,blue'
> {?list*} ?list=green&list=red&list=blue
the reality is that most forms-processing libraries assume that
the names are unique. They are usually processed as an associative
array or hash, so what happens is that the last parameter named
"list" wins. That's why my first try at this pattern appended
a number to the subsequent names.
At this point, I am just going to say that if an application
actually wants the above, then it should supply an associative
array itself and not rely on funky list magic. Also, someone
else requested the ability to define query parameters without
any =value, as in
foo?a=c&d
which is possible (in the editor's draft) if we have
a := "c"
b := [ "d" ]
{?a,b}
> So why not think about having both just more explicit by declaring two kinds of 'explodes' one 'named' (*), the other 'unnamed' (% maybe?)
Modifiers like explode effectively double the complexity of expansion,
so I am reticent to add any more unless there is a proven need.
....Roy
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 20:58:19 UTC