Re: [apps-discuss] Question about URI template and expansion of an empty list

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Fri, 26 April 2013 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jasnell@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AF421F95EE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.954
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.355, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OH02Gji7WfgQ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f41.google.com (mail-oa0-f41.google.com [209.85.219.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 938DD21F8ADC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id g12so4281617oah.0 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=WuUdlADtvmND3VDp2PW3piIIBlT4bb5zJyz8doUmIDY=; b=BIgOw5rD323qS2EikQxDXGb9/pcl6dXoztnd71tlsbJKEgf2Z6hnFtL/KToJ+rflHD ogBMus4IyzNhlIP6uwhf7F5fKu1cgFZtBlfBM4GkPCAQICq+7m8IAhGty7lpXkwXxNUA 2fFj0hcVWbSMv52Pj9UVFEyfOugewY8qap+cgAL6cb0dj1rnnWZOQQZn7yo28AAidq4m 14VtcomB5lQmW0e7bgMQeArXw8CVRcGdoSEw+E7UnpAUGiPSzyUO2X9mgaSdoPg+03HB kqTh4t93//Isk4dXydcQWvnmD8lB8J+pfczFqSH3jmvBBYdt6ND5Q7JAkHrj724cY7qP Zqew==
X-Received: by 10.182.156.103 with SMTP id wd7mr22743990obb.33.1366997298110; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <517AB75F.7020904@berkeley.edu>
References: <CALcybBBXFDvAp1xpbi4=55Gq0QbfbTH7TV=1MTko7nNdtt-5WQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBBcCTh8+RVWp5UW+2-s9EdKxdoeGdcq6+yGrGJk1nzP0w@mail.gmail.com> <51625870.8000906@berkeley.edu> <CA+-NybWfR47yScyTBi7BRpJgj5SnCxWY1rDV5KC8PuE+JEV90A@mail.gmail.com> <517AB75F.7020904@berkeley.edu>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:27:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbc8A0JKFT+zm_z5DAcsjQ-Ncmg3tr2WM-3iWoB1WGia7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Question about URI template and expansion of an empty list
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:28:19 -0000

Nope, it works. I've maintained that the spec is fine like it is ;-)
Honestly, I never really saw where the confusion was.

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> hello joe.
>
> thanks for the response!
>
>
> On 2013-04-17 07:03 , Joe Gregorio wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/dret/uritemplate-test/blob/master/spec-examples-by-section.json
>>> (line 234) says it's "X", but i am really interested in the "why"
>>> explanation as well. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570#section-3.2.5
>>> says
>>> that
>>
>> The answer is in the text you quote:
>> "for each defined variable in the variable-list, append '.' to the
>> result string and then perform variable expansion"
>> The set of variables in the variable list is the empty set, so no '.'
>> is appended.
>> I agree that if this is confusing an addendum is in order.
>
>
> ... and just when i wanted to submit an erratum and searched for the best
> place where to put clarifying text, i ran into the last paragraph of
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570#section-2.3 :
>
> "A variable defined as a list value is considered undefined if the list
> contains zero members. A variable defined as an associative array of (name,
> value) pairs is considered undefined if the array contains zero members or
> if all member names in the array are associated with undefined values."
>
> while still being a bit of an unintuitive definition for me, it seems as if
> this particular paragraph was never mentioned in previous discussions, and
> indeed clarifies that an empty array should be considered as an "undefined
> variable". for now, i'll assume that this settles things and will not file
> an erratum. but if people think (fracis? james?) that this still isn't good
> enough, then please speak up.
>
> thanks and cheers,
>
>
> dret.
>
> --
> erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
>            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
>            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss