- From: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
- Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 08:57:50 -0700
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, Brandon Sterne <bsterne@mozilla.com>, public-web-security@w3.org
Adam Barth wrote on 4/28/2011 12:39 AM: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Gervase Markham<gerv@mozilla.org> wrote: >> On 26/04/11 21:17, Adam Barth wrote: >>> Surely form-urlencoding is more widely implemented by HTTP servers >>> than JSON. Every HTTP server made in the past decade and a half >>> understands form-urlencoding. Moreover, they'll continue to >>> understand it if/when JSON goes out of fashion (e.g., assuming >>> <form> and form elements are here to stay). >> >> JSON has the advantage of being human-readable, which form-urlencoding >> really doesn't. JSON is now baked into the web platform in the form of the >> JSON object, so is unlikely to "go out of fashion". > > Essentially all HTTP servers that receive data from browsers receive > data in form-urlencoding because that's how the form element works. > It's far and away the most common way browsers send key/value pairs to > HTTP servers. I just don't see a compelling reason why this API > should be randomly different. I agree, I'd rather receive it as form-urlencoding but I'm wondering if the way the report is sent could be an option for those who prefer JSON. - Bil
Received on Saturday, 28 May 2011 15:58:57 UTC