norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2007/04/30/hrrihttp://norman.walsh.name/2007/04/30/hrri/comments.atom2012-02-13T06:00:13.480635ZComment 1 on /2007/04/30/hrrihttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012007-04-30T22:28:18Z2007-04-30T22:28:18ZEd Daviesda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Oh no, not another *R? syntax! Seriously, it's a great pity that these, worthwhile, extensions didn't get included in IRIs. I hope everybody has a really good think about whether there's anything else that needs to go in before this becomes an RFC.

Comment 2 on /2007/04/30/hrrihttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022007-05-01T18:06:01Z2007-05-01T18:06:01ZAlessandro Vernetda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Yes! In fact we have recently implemented a similar set of rules in our XForms engine. Now we would have a "spec" to go by. The use case has to do with the XForms submission construct which can be used to send an HTTP request. This can be used to send some XQuery to eXist on the URI. The URI is provided in the action attribute of xforms:submission and it be convenient to write something like:

action="/exist/rest/db/mycollection?_query=element count { count(/*) }"

This would not be a valid URI, but it is a valid HRRI which can be converted to a URI following the set of rules you and Richard proposed. Is this in line with the use cases you have in mind?

Alex