URI proposal #104

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@thewilkybarkid
Contributor

thewilkybarkid commented Apr 4, 2013

This is an early draft of a URI interface proposal, discussed at https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/php-fig/06BSXGqPRiU

@flyboarder

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@flyboarder

flyboarder May 1, 2013

👎 Sorry but I dont think we should be defining a URI like that IMO, anything with a '?' is a bad uri.
Routers should handle (and strip) any special characters from the uri and handle them accordingly.

👎 Sorry but I dont think we should be defining a URI like that IMO, anything with a '?' is a bad uri.
Routers should handle (and strip) any special characters from the uri and handle them accordingly.

@philsturgeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@philsturgeon

philsturgeon May 1, 2013

Contributor

@flyboarder: Are you trying to SEO optimize your RESTful API endpoints?

Contributor

philsturgeon commented May 1, 2013

@flyboarder: Are you trying to SEO optimize your RESTful API endpoints?

@flyboarder

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@flyboarder

flyboarder May 1, 2013

@philsturgeon not specifically, but yes I do mostly use RESTful endpoints, however as a standard anything that is not SEO optimized is bad IMHO.

example.com/page?=home

is worse than

example.com/page/home
or
example.com/home

my opinion is to make uri more accessible to home users and business', this applies more to address' like

government.gov/incometax
or
government.gov/tax/income

see what I mean?

@philsturgeon not specifically, but yes I do mostly use RESTful endpoints, however as a standard anything that is not SEO optimized is bad IMHO.

example.com/page?=home

is worse than

example.com/page/home
or
example.com/home

my opinion is to make uri more accessible to home users and business', this applies more to address' like

government.gov/incometax
or
government.gov/tax/income

see what I mean?

@philsturgeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@philsturgeon

philsturgeon May 1, 2013

Contributor

Yup, clean URL's for a website are lovely, but there are plenty of instances when a query string is perfectly acceptable:

  • Search forms
  • Pagingation
  • Listing filters
  • Anything that is not a website
Contributor

philsturgeon commented May 1, 2013

Yup, clean URL's for a website are lovely, but there are plenty of instances when a query string is perfectly acceptable:

  • Search forms
  • Pagingation
  • Listing filters
  • Anything that is not a website
@flyboarder

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@flyboarder

flyboarder May 1, 2013

@philsturgeon I can't think of an example where a clean uri can't be used (could you give me an example for better understanding), Im thinking that pretty much any uri could be converted to something clean.

However thats not to say that there are not situations that a clean uri wont work, but in that case maybe the standard should define clean uri's better and define query strings as more of a 'optional - if nothing else can work' sorta deal?

@philsturgeon I can't think of an example where a clean uri can't be used (could you give me an example for better understanding), Im thinking that pretty much any uri could be converted to something clean.

However thats not to say that there are not situations that a clean uri wont work, but in that case maybe the standard should define clean uri's better and define query strings as more of a 'optional - if nothing else can work' sorta deal?

@flyboarder

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@flyboarder

flyboarder May 1, 2013

After reading more of the additions in the document I can see where you are coming from. However shouldn't how the uri is formatted be more of a scheme independent thing? and if so should not be a fig-standard?

After reading more of the additions in the document I can see where you are coming from. However shouldn't how the uri is formatted be more of a scheme independent thing? and if so should not be a fig-standard?

@philsturgeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@philsturgeon

philsturgeon May 1, 2013

Contributor

All I'm saying is you're totally allowed to use query strings on the Internet.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 1, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Matthew Ratzke notifications@github.com wrote:

After reading more of the additions in the document I can see where you are coming from. However shouldn't how the uri is formatted be more of a scheme independent thing? and if so should not be a fig-standard?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Contributor

philsturgeon commented May 1, 2013

All I'm saying is you're totally allowed to use query strings on the Internet.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 1, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Matthew Ratzke notifications@github.com wrote:

After reading more of the additions in the document I can see where you are coming from. However shouldn't how the uri is formatted be more of a scheme independent thing? and if so should not be a fig-standard?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@flyboarder

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@flyboarder

flyboarder May 1, 2013

@philsturgeon fair enough

My question is more should this be a php-fig related standard? I dont see how this related to coding standards - more to protocol standards, and not php specific??

@philsturgeon fair enough

My question is more should this be a php-fig related standard? I dont see how this related to coding standards - more to protocol standards, and not php specific??

@bobthecow

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@bobthecow

bobthecow May 1, 2013

Contributor

More than can, you should use queries for certain things. Sorting a collection, for example, should not change the path portion of the URI.

Contributor

bobthecow commented May 1, 2013

More than can, you should use queries for certain things. Sorting a collection, for example, should not change the path portion of the URI.

@thewilkybarkid

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@thewilkybarkid

thewilkybarkid May 3, 2013

Contributor

The interface must allow access to all possible parts of URIs, otherwise it's useless. There are no "clean" and "bad" (unless you mean invalid) URIs here.

Contributor

thewilkybarkid commented May 3, 2013

The interface must allow access to all possible parts of URIs, otherwise it's useless. There are no "clean" and "bad" (unless you mean invalid) URIs here.

@philsturgeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@philsturgeon

philsturgeon Jul 31, 2013

Contributor

This has been 3 months with no active conversation, and the merit of this as a PSR was still in question.

Once the new workflow bylaw vote has finished, if anyone is interested in picking this up then you can simply find two sponsors and put this to a vote, but until then I am just going to close this.

Contributor

philsturgeon commented Jul 31, 2013

This has been 3 months with no active conversation, and the merit of this as a PSR was still in question.

Once the new workflow bylaw vote has finished, if anyone is interested in picking this up then you can simply find two sponsors and put this to a vote, but until then I am just going to close this.

@MPV

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@MPV

MPV Aug 2, 2013

@philsturgeon In my opinion, this thread doesn't reflect the real discussion around this topic. I think the "URIs" discussion on the Google Group better describes the progress. It's true though that there hasn't been extensive activity the last few months — could it be related to the summer period though?

I personally think this makes sense as a PSR and would love to see it happen.

@thewilkybarkid What do you think, are we far from a draft?

MPV commented Aug 2, 2013

@philsturgeon In my opinion, this thread doesn't reflect the real discussion around this topic. I think the "URIs" discussion on the Google Group better describes the progress. It's true though that there hasn't been extensive activity the last few months — could it be related to the summer period though?

I personally think this makes sense as a PSR and would love to see it happen.

@thewilkybarkid What do you think, are we far from a draft?

@philsturgeon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@philsturgeon

philsturgeon Aug 2, 2013

Contributor

Wait a few days then follow the new workflow rules (it's going to be merged in 3 days if the vote numbers hold the majority).

Get sponsors and run an entrance vote.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 2, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Victor notifications@github.com wrote:

@philsturgeon In my opinion, this thread doesn't reflect the real discussion around this topic. I think the "URIs" discussion on the Google Group better describes the progress. It's true though that there hasn't been extensive activity the last few months — could it be related to the summer period though?

I personally think this makes sense as a PSR and would love to see it happen.

@thewilkybarkid What do you think, are we far from a draft?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Contributor

philsturgeon commented Aug 2, 2013

Wait a few days then follow the new workflow rules (it's going to be merged in 3 days if the vote numbers hold the majority).

Get sponsors and run an entrance vote.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 2, 2013, at 10:22 AM, Victor notifications@github.com wrote:

@philsturgeon In my opinion, this thread doesn't reflect the real discussion around this topic. I think the "URIs" discussion on the Google Group better describes the progress. It's true though that there hasn't been extensive activity the last few months — could it be related to the summer period though?

I personally think this makes sense as a PSR and would love to see it happen.

@thewilkybarkid What do you think, are we far from a draft?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment