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

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