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

Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <fgaliegue@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 F226521F925A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 KLvyhRdFU1a8 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ea0-x229.google.com (mail-ea0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D581A21F8E9A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ea0-f169.google.com with SMTP id n15so2505259ead.28 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=TuQ7RP4HjXoxvjR3tUnVH0DuzWZMU1PZuqfmEck//qQ=; b=TxQvchMXouZ6yNFkqyfHoVBBERdStmld8nLCxP52jpNKRUCP47865rQKYfJBCb65lF I0Fv0zS4GJ701rJxNPJJ3oqp68RsPLi4ZOmP+hhTh8nXNrmqH+mGyQQGem1Lp4NrVy26 4F1x0fGJ7BIDysL0347StKehP0ivDCBl5rG0DE+NaY9+idrsama/clrBXzu7jid5YD2o M2nNlsW2GDbh0ldJVODWpEgP7FVCOpEhwGc8mP7hWeCJzhIqjBxTi04nvXQJTy+eDkFz QZ/9FCDEWNTdb3jcM3fdQF8swEODu2vo71IQ+rlVdzn6bnM6NaSnteeB2JNn56cfRzR3 TwDQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.14.89.69 with SMTP id b45mr66983939eef.10.1366066786853; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.213.4 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALcybBB11EENT6dbxy0Wgb2cVUmuhxbnKOuVirvjd++R6f=5QA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALcybBBXFDvAp1xpbi4=55Gq0QbfbTH7TV=1MTko7nNdtt-5WQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBBcCTh8+RVWp5UW+2-s9EdKxdoeGdcq6+yGrGJk1nzP0w@mail.gmail.com> <51625870.8000906@berkeley.edu> <CAL0qLwYR+HknkVH5Y_jusqBv3=QbALFe=5t3FhYArNxzQYDPpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBCeyJce+m7GB8ak_Wmwfk6+Z=bcaDKs489H0v4vLOgahw@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfLQ5wCTNEJ4ufEs76YoVBePP8JYLQkjgUHJQ-o3=pUeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYsVt63VAtg0yqG=KDO7e1DvmE-8ywXM8CBqrt8mxDZOA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfDOS4pdnx5Z4arwLw8demRfKrT4bE+Jb4uzvcdgzKRfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwaoaYbnHiYCuxC050Yn=G3C5skG5m9mkb_SvO0Yhkf8hw@mail.gmail.com> <CALcybBB11EENT6dbxy0Wgb2cVUmuhxbnKOuVirvjd++R6f=5QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:59:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CALcybBDc4Zad-Yc-+4Wgats78EtR-0iR-TmSGOu++zODjnH9mA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.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: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:59:49 -0000

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Everywhere else in the document refers to a list as (value[, value[, ...]]).
>> So it seems to me "()" is the empty list, while "[]" is not.
>>
>
> Then what would it be? There is no empty list defined at all in the
> RFC examples.
>
> I agree that there should be an errata, defining expansion behaviour
> for all of these corner cases. Right now, only the tests at
> https://github.com/uri-templates/uritemplate-test make any mention of
> it and there seems to be a disagreement on how these should be
> handled.
>

Ping?

My opinion is that this is of fundamental importance if RFC 6570 has
to have any impact over already existing uses of "poorer" forms of
this RFC. Right now, the RFC is unambiguous, and more worryingly, I
see no way out of it, since there is no clear, definite answer to my
initial question.

I have a pretty complete RFC 6570 implementation, but these corner
cases are what prevent me from arguing that "yes, it obeys the RFC",
especially since some advanced tests out there seem to disagree with
my, and others', interpretation of this RFC.

Please share your thoughts,
--
Francis Galiegue, fgaliegue@gmail.com
JSON Schema in Java: http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com