URI Template • Hacker News Board

Re: URI Template

#11

Post by soheilpro » Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 2:44 PM UTC

zimbatm wrote: post #7

For rubyists, the addressable gem has support for it: https://github.com/sporkmonger/addressable/tree/#uri-templat...

And for Node.js: https://github.com/bramstein/url-template

Re: URI Template

#12

Post by icebraining » Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

twsted wrote: post #10

ubersoldat2k7 wrote: post #3

Why do RFC's have to be so ugly?

I really love them. This probably reveals my age...

Nope, I'm <25 and I love them too.

Re: URI Template

#13

Post by nfoz » Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 3:05 PM UTC

treerex wrote: post #8

ubersoldat2k7 wrote: post #3

Why do RFC's have to be so ugly?

Because they originate from a time where plain text was what you had, and the format was created to be consistent and easy to format by hand. I still prefer my specifications to be in plain text so that I can view them easily and quickly.

I still prefer my everything in plaintext....

Re: URI Template

#14

Post by nicwolff » Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 3:19 PM UTC

There's a mature Perl module for this as well: http://search.cpan.org/~bricas/URI-Template-0.17/lib/URI/Tem...

Re: URI Template

#15

Post by buro9 » Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 3:23 PM UTC

This is one of two proposed standards I've been following with some interest, the other being a sane(ish) way to implement PATCH for JSON objects:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6902

Re: URI Template

#16

Post by byroot » Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 3:39 PM UTC

ubersoldat2k7 wrote: post #3

Why do RFC's have to be so ugly?

It's just a formating issue. Nothing prevent you to reformat them: http://pretty-rfc.herokuapp.com/RFC2616

Re: URI Template

#17

Post by jrochkind1 » Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 4:08 PM UTC

treerex wrote: post #8

ubersoldat2k7 wrote: post #3

Why do RFC's have to be so ugly?

Because they originate from a time where plain text was what you had, and the format was created to be consistent and easy to format by hand. I still prefer my specifications to be in plain text so that I can view them easily and quickly.

It would be easy enough to at least format them in HTML, they use such consistent ascii 'typesetting', it could easily be automated.

I mean, they are formatted in HTML now, but as a giant block of monospace text. They could use s for the headers, let the text flow with browser resize for small screens, heck use bootstrap for good readable web typesetting, etc.

I am not sure why the IETF isn't interested in better web typesetting for em.

At one point someone had a site that did that, I think it was advertised and discussed here on HN, but I forget what it was called, and I think it faded into non-supported obscurity (since it was obviously a labor of love, unpaid).

Re: URI Template

#18

Post by specialist » Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 4:57 PM UTC

Very helpful, thanks for link. I'm working on my own web app "framework" and had rolled my own URL/URI router. This will reduce my reinvention quotient.

Re: URI Template

#19

Post by r00fus » Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 6:24 PM UTC

byroot wrote: post #16

ubersoldat2k7 wrote: post #3

Why do RFC's have to be so ugly?

It's just a formating issue. Nothing prevent you to reformat them: http://pretty-rfc.herokuapp.com/RFC2616

This is very cool. Why is the RFC source not available and what does it take to get it?

Re: URI Template

#20

Post by byroot » Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 11:25 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #19

byroot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a formating issue. Nothing prevent you to reformat them: http://pretty-rfc.herokuapp.com/RFC2616

This is very cool. Why is the RFC source not available and what does it take to get it?

The home page states:

  Note: most RFCs can't be prettified at the moment, as their
  source files are unavailable to the public and need to be 
  requested from rfc-editor.org. I'm working on this.

I suppose that it's just a matter of time.