Combining URI Templates and Link-Header?

[Jan Algermissen-2]

Hi,

is there any ongoing activity to combine the Link header and URI templates?

IMHO it is not a solution to allow URI templates to occur in place of URIs since that would make it necessary to check for *all* URIs whether they are a template. Instead, a dedicated header (Link-Template) would be needed to enable such use of URI templates.

Is there any significant interest or activity in standardizing such a header (or a similar solution)?

Thanks,

Jan

[mnot]

Hi Jan,

The first draft of Link (or two) contained Link-Templates, just as you  
outline. I didn't have much confidence URI templates at the time; the  
difference in maturity between them and the Link header was  
considerable.

I think the right thing to do here is to continue working on them  
separately; while they could live in the same document, there isn't a  
pressing need to, and combining them puts Link at risk (both in terms  
of schedule as well as getting through the process).

To answer your last question -- yes, I'm very interested in doing so.  
I think we need to see a Templates draft from Roy first, though.

Cheers,


On 11/06/2009, at 5:02 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> is there any ongoing activity to combine the Link header and URI  
> templates?
>
> IMHO it is not a solution to allow URI templates to occur in place  
> of URIs since that would make it necessary to check for *all* URIs  
> whether they are a template. Instead, a dedicated header (Link-
> Template) would be needed to enable such use of URI templates.
>
> Is there any significant interest or activity in standardizing such  
> a header (or a similar solution)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jan
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

[Joe Gregorio-2]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Mark Nottingham<mnot@...> wrote:

> Hi Jan,
>
> The first draft of Link (or two) contained Link-Templates, just as you
> outline. I didn't have much confidence URI templates at the time; the
> difference in maturity between them and the Link header was considerable.
>
> I think the right thing to do here is to continue working on them
> separately; while they could live in the same document, there isn't a
> pressing need to, and combining them puts Link at risk (both in terms of
> schedule as well as getting through the process).

Agreed, they can and should exist as separate documents.

  Thanks,
  -joe

>
> To answer your last question -- yes, I'm very interested in doing so. I
> think we need to see a Templates draft from Roy first, though.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 11/06/2009, at 5:02 AM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> is there any ongoing activity to combine the Link header and URI
>> templates?
>>
>> IMHO it is not a solution to allow URI templates to occur in place of URIs
>> since that would make it necessary to check for *all* URIs whether they are
>> a template. Instead, a dedicated header (Link-Template) would be needed to
>> enable such use of URI templates.
>>
>> Is there any significant interest or activity in standardizing such a
>> header (or a similar solution)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>

--
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org