W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)

From: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:13:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD3-0rPRPzVvYb6_Z4wDZp73L5Kyb7LmE0P5j4A-2VSRwT7FMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu>
Cc: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:08 AM, 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.
>

is it true only registered suffixes are allowed, e.g. json, xml etc?

application/webstream; protocol=...  seems more legit and most subprotocols
are not registered media types either..

Re: the actual parameter "protocol", we may want to mention it similar to
utf-8 checking, as a future concern for providing websocket compatibility.




>
> <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.
>
>     * 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.
>
>
> --
> Loïc Hoguin
> https://ninenines.eu
>
Received on Friday, 28 October 2016 01:13:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 28 October 2016 01:13:38 UTC