http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2617 <pre>Hi URI people, Just a few notes regarding URI Templates, since we have an RFC now &lt;http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570&gt;: * Joe's implementation in Python has been moved to Github, and we've got it up to RFC level 4 conformance. See &lt;https://github.com/uri-templates/uritemplate-py&gt;. It's also now listed in pypi &lt;http://pypi.python.org/pypi/uritemplate/0.5.1&gt;. Note that it's still beta-quality; it doesn't do much in the way of input checking, for example. * We've also started collecting test cases at &lt;https://github.com/uri-templates/uritemplate-test&gt;. Right now it includes the examples from the RFC, but we've been talking with other implementers about adding more; please make a pull request or raise an issue as appropriate. Note that the Python implementation above uses these for its testing. * Finally, the list of implementations at &lt;http://code.google.com/p/uri-templates/wiki/Implementations&gt; has been updated. If you have more information about one of them, or would like one added, please make a comment </pre> Mark Nottingham 2012-05-17T11:28:11 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2604 <pre>For those with an interest in the ABNFing of URI who have not seen this on the IETF uri-review or on ipv6 lists, the question is how to tack an ipv6 zoneid onto the constructs in RFC3986, while preserving the long standing ipv6 practice of using a percent character as the separator in this case. I would suggest follow-up on one of the two afore mentioned lists. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Fenner" &lt;fenner&lt; at &gt;fenron.net&gt; To: "Brian E Carpenter" &lt;brian.e.carpenter&lt; at &gt;gmail.com&gt; Cc: &lt;ipv6&lt; at &gt;ietf.org&gt;; "Brian Haberman" &lt;brian&lt; at &gt;innovationslab.net&gt;; "S Moonesamy" &lt;sm+ietf&lt; at &gt;elandsys.com&gt;; &lt;ipv6-chairs&lt; at &gt;tools.ietf.org&gt; Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 1:08 PM Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00.txt On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter &lt;brian.e.carpenter&lt; at &gt;gmail.com&gt; wrote: ways). Previous joint work between the ipv6 working group and the W3C URI working group resulted in a decision that did not change the ABNF at all, in 2 ways: 1. It used the IPvFuture extension m</pre> t.petch 2012-03-06T15:38:06 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2564 <pre>FYI: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#http-aes-scheme </pre> Julian Reschke 2012-03-05T10:21:06 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2562 <pre>Dear all. I would like to bring your attention the http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-uri-acr-extension-04 submission. Technical summary: This URI scheme is intended as an extension to the "tel:" scheme but without disclosing the true identity of a reference or a user. The "acr" URI describes an anonymous reference, that can be mapped to a resource or a user. There are multiple situations where the true identity of a user or a resources can not be disclosed. The "acr" URI is a globally unique identifier ( "name" ) only; it does not describe the steps necessary to reach the user or the device. However it can contain a parameter indication what body or organisation that could resolve it. It is intended for privacy protection, where a user trusts a translating party, that can route or forward the request or message to the true user or resource. This is an individual contribution, so I need help to bring this to a working group, and hopefully convert it to a permanent RFC </pre> sune.jakobsson< at >telenor.com 2012-03-02T13:05:30 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2560 <pre>Hello folks, It seems that I need to close the loop, since the independent submission process doesn't feed back here (unlike an open WG). After a large number of constructive last call comments and a draft 08 to address them http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-08.txt the spec has been approved by the IESG as a Proposed Standard. Now we just have to wait for the RFC Editor queue to get final wording edits and publish it. A diff from 07 is at http://uri-templates.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/spec/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-08-from-7.diff.html Note that the one substantive change is the processing of {;list*}, {?list*}, and {&amp;list*} to allow for repeated parameters with the same name, based on an earlier discussion here. Happy implementing. Cheers, Roy T. Fielding &lt;http://roy.gbiv.com/&gt; Principal Scientist, Adobe Systems &lt;http://adobe.com/enterprise&gt; Begin forwarded message: Begin forwarded message: </pre> Roy T. Fielding 2012-02-04T00:55:08 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2556 <pre>I have been working on an implementation of URI Templates in C#, and came upon some ambiguity in the spec. In section 2.1 Literals, the ABNF includes %x5D-5F in the set for literals, but the comment mentions that literals should be 'any Unicode character except ... , "^", .. ' but "^" is %x5E. Is "^" in the set of literals or no? Thanks in advance, -pete </pre> Peter Johanson 2011-12-05T17:40:28 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2552 <pre>Dear all, we discussed the URI schemes on this list and I wanted to give some short feedback, how it turned out. In a nutshell, I benchmarked if the URLs are stable between Wikipedia revisions and it turned out that the context-hash based approach had quite high probability (80-90 %) to stay stable between the revisions. Details can be found in the technical report. All the best, Sebastian ***ANNOUNCEMENT*** The Natural Language Processing Interchange Format (NIF) is an RDF/OWL-based format that aims to achieve interoperability between Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools, language resources and annotations. The core of NIF consists of a vocabulary, which can represent Strings as RDF resources. A special URI Design is used to pinpoint annotations to a part of a document. These URIs can then be used to attach arbitrary annotations to the respective character sequence. Employing these URIs, annotations can be published on the Web as Linked Data and interchanged between different NLP tools and</pre> Sebastian Hellmann 2011-11-28T07:43:46 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2548 <pre>What general guidance is there on how often one should query for a template from a well-known URI, in case it changes? A long-running client might have trouble if the server wants a new template for some reason, and the client doesn't know it should get a new one. -MSK </pre> Murray S. Kucherawy 2011-10-25T14:56:25 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2546 <pre>Hi all, I don't have the URI template draft handy unfortunately (on a long flight), so I can't confirm this, but I think I found something useful that I don't believe the template draft currently handles. If you have a template that includes "/{foo}", then the "/" is always inserted into the template regardless of whether or not "foo" is actually defined. It might be nice to have the "/" be there only if "foo" is set. Maybe something like "{?foo/}", which means: - If "foo" is not set, append the empty string. - If "foo" is set but empty, append "/" and the name "foo" only. - If "foo" is set to a string, append "/", then the name, then "=", then the value. - If "foo" is set to a list, append "/", then the name, then "=", then the list elements separated by ",". - If "foo" is set to a key-value set, append "/", then the first key, then "=", then the first value; for all remaining key-value pairs, append "&amp;", the next key, then "=", then its matching value.</pre> Murray S. Kucherawy 2011-10-25T09:46:34 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2543 <pre>Hello everyone, I've been reading through RFC 4395 and some of the mailing list archives. We're working on iOS and Android apps that we'd like to have be able to respond to URIs in the mail applications of each of those devices. For example, if we generate a password reset email and send it to the user and they click on that link in their mail application we'd like that to fire up our app instead of the web browser. I recognize that this is a fairly standard thing to do and in reading through what must be a somewhat memorable thread (fb: URIs? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2010Feb/0013.html) I see that this has been beaten around a bit. Based on the fb: URIs thread I get the feeling that people wish we could register with iOS and Android to have our app handle URIs of the form http://www.eventbrite.com/resetpassword. I'm pretty sure that this is not possible? Given that we don't think we can use http and given RFC 4395 we're planning to use a scheme com-eventbrite-attendee: and generate URIs lik</pre> Bob Van Zant 2011-10-07T16:07:59 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2536 <pre>Commas don't have a particularly special role in URIs. They are just 1 of 11 characters in the &lt;reserved&gt; set that are not used as delimiters of the generic URI components. URI templates (draft-gregorio-uritemplate-06), however, gives commas special meaning. They are the only &lt;reserved&gt; character that can appear when expanding {var}. I'm not aware of any reason why URI templates should single out commas for this special treatment. It simultaneously encourages servers to use commas as separators, while also causing problems for some servers that have (quite reasonably) chosen to use commas as separators. Consider a bank server that accepts payment transactions such as: https://example.com/pay/{amount},{to},{from},{comment} The template processor might be a trusted front-end inserting the "from" variable value based on the authenticated user, but accepting "amount" and "to" values from the user. This should be able to be safe. But it isn't with the current draft spec. If the user provides a "to" value th</pre> James Manger 2011-09-07T15:13:14 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2534 <pre>Hi All, i am having trouble reconciling some of the examples in the 06 draft with both the descriptions of the expansions and the sample implementation. The first set hinge on the handling of expansions where named (in the sense of the table in appendix A) is true. The variable list has the list value ["red", "green", "blue"]. The example expansions are: {;list} ;list=red,green,blue {;list*} ;red;green;blue {?list} ?list=red,green,blue {?list*} ?list=red&amp;list=green&amp;list=blue {&amp;list} &amp;list=red,green,blue {&amp;list*} &amp;list=red&amp;list=green&amp;list=blue I don't understand why the expansions of ? and &amp; include list= for each entry when exploded. The description of the handling for the case of an exploded list makes no mention of the use of the name, and there is no separate section (as there is for the unexploded case). Also, the table makes ; the same as ? and &amp; for named, and yet their handling appears different. The descript</pre> Robbie Gates 2011-09-05T07:54:36 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2520 <pre>draft-gregorio-uritemplate-06.txt allows a comma-separated list of variables in any expression, regardless of the expression operator. However, a list should not be used with 5 of the 8 operators (+ # . / and no operator) because an expansion will be ambiguous if any variable in the list is undefined. The server cannot tell which value goes with which variable. Consider if the template "{alpha,beta,gamma}" is expanded to "23,6". The user could have provided alpha=23 beta=6, or alpha=23 gamma=6, or beta=23 gamma=6 (or beta=[23,6] but that is a separate bug). A template like "{alpha,beta,gamma}" is almost certainly a mistake by the template author. It only makes any sense if all the variables are mandatory, but in that case it is clearer to use "{alpha},{beta},{gamma}" -- with no chance of ambiguity (and simpler lower-level expressions). I suggest changing the spec ABNF to only allow variable lists with operators that produce name=value pair (or drop variable lists entirely). -- James Manger </pre> James Manger 2011-08-24T13:50:00 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2505 <pre>Dear all, a topic came up on public-lod&lt; at &gt;w3.org , which might best be posted here. I will summarize most of it here real quick, the details can be found attached. Currently, I am working on an interchange format in RDF for Natural Language Processing(NLP), called NIF [1] (slides[2]), which is part of LOD2[3]. It heavily relies on URI Fragment IDs that address substrings of a plain/text document. Although RFC5147 [4] exists it does not cover some requirements of the NLP Use Case. RFC5147 provides integrity checks, but there is no proposal that produces robust fragment IDs. e.g. something that works on the context and not on line or position. A change in the document on position 0 might render all fragment ids obsolete. E.g. "#range=(574,585)" would not be valid any more, if one character was inserted at the beginning of the document, changing the index. The RFC was already extended for CSV[5], but I would even go further and allow more extension and then collect them all in a structured format su</pre> Sebastian Hellmann 2011-08-16T08:36:47 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2496 <pre>Hi all, I've finally come round to updating my js implementation to the latest state of the spec (that is currently r71 at http://code.google.com/p/uri-templates/) I know this has no official 0.6 label (yet), but since it fixed some samples and removed some more requirements (e.g. the 'default') lazy me thought this to be an easier goal. Anyway, here some findings: [unnamed list expansion for ; matrix-params] Anyway: I only have one case that made me add some quirk to comply to: {;list*} ;red;green;blue Without the quirk my implementation produced: {;list*} ;list=red;list=green;list=blue Well, I obviously don't like quirks, but sentiments aside I am left to wonder if the matrix-parameters are not always expected to carry a name? [encoded names] If I understood the spec correctly the varspec-names can contain pcnt-encoded characters, and should be decoded to translate onto context-keys. Thus the following expansions should work out as listed, right? [nest</pre> Marc Portier 2011-08-09T06:50:42 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2478 <pre>The URI Templates draft currently requires use of the NFKC for normalization of Unicode strings. I've never understood why that is, considering that IRI does no require it and browsers appear to use NFC (if anything). Also, it should only apply to the expansions -- the literal parts don't need to be normalized. Should I change it to NFC? ....Roy </pre> Roy T. Fielding 2011-07-14T23:31:51 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2454 <pre>Hi Mark, I'd like to check with you my understanding of RFC 4395 [1]. The FIle API specification contains the definition of the blob URI scheme [2]. Following the registration procedure, my understanding is that: 1- Arun should reformat section 6.7.1 [2] (or include a new section) to follow the template at [3]; 2- Once our specification is in LC, Arun should send an email to uri-review&lt; at &gt;ietf.org asking for review (and address whatever comments come out of that); 3- At CR, Arun should request registration from IANA (iana&lt; at &gt;iana.org), asking for provisional status; 4- At PR (or REC?), Arun should request permanent status from IANA. Do you concur with those steps? Philippe [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#page-9 [2] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#ABNFForBlob [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-5.4 </pre> Philippe Le Hegaret 2011-06-21T19:01:26 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2453 <pre>Hello all, 17.06.2011 23:46, Mark Nottingham wrote: This document, especially Section 2.6 and some other URI-related stuff, may be interesting for people on this list. Please provide your comments to apps-discuss list, preferably copied to Mark Nottingham, who is the IETF/W3C liaison. Thanks, Mykyta Yevstifeyev </pre> Mykyta Yevstifeyev 2011-06-18T04:49:01 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2436 <pre>Greetings URI listserv! I'm writing to this listserv at the behest of Mark Nottingham, who sent me here from the ietf-http-wg&lt; at &gt;w3.org listserv. This email is about a "new" URI scheme used to access binary data, and we'd like feedback on it, as well as advice on whether any further standardization endeavors are necessary. My name is Arun Ranganathan, and I'm the current editor of the File API [1] specification (sometimes called the HTML5 File API, which is unfortunate); I'm also the former Chair of the WebGL Working Group [2] (which brings hardware-accelerated 3D graphics to the web), and have a continued interest in allowing binary data to be securely accessed and manipulated on the web. I'm sponsored by Mozilla. The File API introduces the notion of a Blob object [3], which represents immutable binary data. A file from the underlying file system can be asynchronously read as a Blob object into various data formats, for example. The existing File interface in JavaScript inherits from Blob. </pre> Arun Ranganathan 2011-05-13T18:05:39 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2435 <pre>Hi all, Finally got round at this javascript implementation of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-04 (minus the partial syntax and some more testing) Anyway, it is open at: https://github.com/marc-portier/uri-templates It wraps inside JQuery and comes with tests up in QUnit. (JQuery dependency currently limited to the handy $.extend and $.isFunction) Must say getting my head around things asked more time then I initially expected: clarity and elegance of the syntax and explanation did hide quite some more special cases then I would of have thought of. One case I still haven't ironed out, to the extend I'm liking my solution more :) is this: which in my mind (and implementation) follows more closely the line of thinking in: the consistency I see is this: both ; and ? operators deal with named parameters, in unexploded form the values are wrapped up in one string, but still expect value. best regards, -marc= PS: The link to the promised js implementation from http://cod</pre> Marc Portier 2011-04-28T07:17:25 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/2434 <pre>Hi all, Finally got round at this javascript implementation of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-04 (minus the partial syntax and some more testing) Anyway, it is open at: https://github.com/marc-portier/uri-templates It wraps inside JQuery and comes with tests up in QUnit. (JQuery dependency currently limited to the handy $.extend and $.isFunction) Must say getting my head around things asked more time then I initially expected: clarity and elegance of the syntax and explanation did hide quite some more special cases then I would of have thought of. One case I still haven't ironed out, to the extend I'm liking my solution more :) is this: which in my mind (and implementation) follows more closely the line of thinking in: the consistency I see is this: both ; and ? operators deal with named parameters, in unexploded form the values are wrapped up in one string, but still expect value. best regards, -marc= PS: The link to the promised js implementation from http://cod</pre> Marc Portier 2011-04-28T07:34:28 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.org.w3c.uri