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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 15 April 2013 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@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 A220121E803D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 4TXAIGzvk5Fg for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A787321E8037 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id c10so2086958wiw.14 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:28 -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=n/k6C1L0D2IDtZFg9MkUlWpYvlPbnCLKVmmzavoVVBc=; b=tzMF+KDIGe1jRkQQimN3CbK0uCXIJm8/sZWHWwR3BiLt6NqU4PcpQ19Orr5VZIQs3m ct0Y04yXlkj9HpmGcGGYmxhZH+jq7X+Yaer64ndrR8kOE4jS8vAhNKrIAv1OMmA4oSv6 HkcLor17KTlRoOPFaf7/toR1lzW7EYaSRCmbEt7o8dat6x4GIFm+zzBOFHPp2ZYzv7LU vJTKeV+hYyKKDp87jqvtnq9bX0hqZVi7lI4e6LWloXZTDrrH04+wIaTsFWC1DrOBJtCp f9jKwaPe0OjCdCe3/KCVcuwEETTf53/IBAIvwF9My/YUJPWS7bgip7y8py9ZBVya1F2O 91iQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.97.233 with SMTP id ed9mr14986326wib.32.1366067428652; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.36.176 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <516C887F.7020007@berkeley.edu>
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> <CALcybBDc4Zad-Yc-+4Wgats78EtR-0iR-TmSGOu++zODjnH9mA@mail.gmail.com> <516C887F.7020007@berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:10:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbMYmHMoPHuUs4aLE4GYWFJog6pp-bGr1vN6TpA__rLeg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044306aad3001304da6e5b02
Cc: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <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: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:10:30 -0000

I emailed the authors several days ago.  None replied.

Unless one of our ADs thinks it's a bad idea (and hopefully they're
watching), I would post an erratum.

-MSK


On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:

> hello.
>
>
> On 2013-04-15 15:59 , Francis Galiegue wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> i just want to add my support for francis' question. i am not as far down
> the line implementing the spec, but i see myself asking the same question
> once i am. and i am still interested how james (snell) solved this riddle
> when adding support for the test case (where the test case behavior is hard
> to explain from the spec language).
>
> http://code.google.com/p/uri-**templates/wiki/Implementations<http://code.google.com/p/uri-templates/wiki/Implementations>lists a number of implementations, and it would be interesting to know what
> they have been doing, and how they handle the test case in question.
>
> 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 |
>