Mark Nottingham wrote:
> A lot of the discussion to date has been around the query
> language itself. To me, the most important part of FIQL is
> fq:interface; having a way to declare that there is a query
> interface -- whatever the query syntax -- is IMO necessary if
> people are going to be exposing these things.
<snip>
> To be clear, I submitted this not because I'm sure I want to
> standardise it; I did so because I want feedback from this
> community on this particular proposal, and to generally gauge
> interest in an openly defined feed query language.
I suggest trying to define it as an extension to OpenSearch. OpenSearch
already has been implemented many times by many people, and it already
is an "80%" solution since it is about full text search.
No matter what you do, URLs are always going to be hard to read. I
suggest giving up on the readability of the URL so that you can gain
readability in non-URL contexts. In particular, I recommend the
end-user-friendly syntax used by Google, Yahoo, Live Search, Lucene, and
many other existing systems:
keyword (keyword OR keyword) operator:"operator parameter"
Where operators are like:
tag:HTTP tag:Standards tag:Web tag:"Web Services"
updated:2007
updated:2007-12
updated:2007-12-09
author:Mark
title:Foo
This ends up being pretty unreadable in URIs due to percent-encoding of
spaces, but some groups have been pretty successful with it.
- Brian
