Re: If not JSON, what then ?

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 02:41:19PM +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Not stupid at all, but I am concerned about adding too much "magic"; if
> implementations are doing too much on your behalf, issues will arise (see
> above).

You probably know that I hate magic as well, that's why I prefer to rely
on what we have. For example, passing "connection:" with the new headers
to optimize their eviction along non-compatible paths is doable. It's not
100% safe but doable. Ensuring that compatible actors replace the old
version is doable as well because it would be a "MUST" in the spec and we
know these actors don't exist yet. So all in all we can possibly do useful
things. I just don't want to have a tens of headers being advertised in
Connection nor having to add many extra headers for the sake of saving
space and parsing time, because we know that it will add extra work that
may sometimes offset the savings. Hence the idea to compact what can be
compacted if we went down that route.


Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 12:56:21 UTC