On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu> wrote: > On 10/25/2016 11:54 AM, Takeshi Yoshino wrote: > >> <snip> >> Oh, sorry for being unclear. I meant that we'll use >> "application/subprotocol+webstream". I.e. introducing +webstream as a >> new media type suffix. >> > > Ah! > > OK I have no problem with that. > > <snip> >> * By the way, don't know if consistency is desirable, by maybe >> calling it application/web-stream is better. Maybe not. >> >> >> Could you please elaborate the proposal? >> > > I mean there's already text/event-stream, so application/webstream is not > consistent with it (missing the dash). But maybe it doesn't matter. Oh, I see! > > > * The HEAD method behaves as usual. The PUT method is probably not >> compatible with doing this. PATCH and DELETE are not compatible AFAIK. >> >> >> I'm feeling that we should just limit the scope of the proposal to GET >> and POST. >> > > Sounds good to me. > > Thanks for the great work! I look forward to implementing this. Thank you so much for the review and suggestions!
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2016 09:11:11 UTC