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

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Tue, 16 April 2013 04:49 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 0194721F94A4 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.666
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.067, 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 VANpIavAdSWZ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-f50.google.com (mail-oa0-f50.google.com [209.85.219.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F0C21F94DC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id n1so97207oag.23 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:49:05 -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=CygF7BSoL/iIf3sA8BqfbpRiVW7c8jo3ImIoBtG02YM=; b=jx0g671sR7WmsPjvSufKM0lZYj3pMLeNP4Ck6a7eBeqC9luh2zAPdBrsLdDCFTC3vr vSc0L9S/Oxko78KWJwjP9Sk8haIkHlw7N2GID0f2EIiR4p9mjUOGSd600rWHjs0P9/Js a12midhWuoMf8bqx4USDy/Zj8qIk1/0gAqJd7Gg2ZovqdNEzhQ1rwPf+eRQPJgSghuRT 1m1u7EbMJWz6256tQwuODc+mZH6EBnW2Et9VBzwHhPT0hbGji0YVi6o+GJ0rRfxoFyqx 6u2wBaaX4QN0grQgyrmI4NEPkX3NKZ5/nQkIYt9u0oYBn2Xt52+ABJoeWpWahbtAuzol FkAg==
X-Received: by 10.60.50.102 with SMTP id b6mr267394oeo.46.1366087745543; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.132.102 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:48:45 -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>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:48:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbeJj3T_UnEN6o1eBHv3_u5QN2q+Dk+Yd8rd_Y_Oz-ZMRQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
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: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 04:49:07 -0000

My apologies, I've been tied up in a number of other tasks and forgot
to respond further on this thread. Posting errata for the spec is
likely a good idea. When I implemented this, whenever I came up
against something that was ambiguous, I simply referred to the
examples given in the spec for guidance. There is no *normative* text
in the draft that describes this issue but there is a non-normative
example that illustrates, what I suspect, is the author's intent.
That, obviously, cannot be verified without the authors speaking up
and responding to the inquiry.

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 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 |
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss