Re: If not JSON, what then ?

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:37:30AM +0300, Kari hurtta wrote:
> | 1) Using the first character of the field-value as a signal that the encoding is in use is interesting. I was 
> | thinking of indicating it with a suffix on the header field name (e.g., Date-J). Either is viable, but I 
> | don't think it's a good idea to reuse existing header field names and rely on that signal to differentiate 
> | the value type; that seems like it would cause a lot of interop problems to me. Defining a new header field 
> | (whether it's Date-J or Date2 or whatever) seems much safer to me.
> | 
> | 2) Regardless of #1, using < as your indicator character is going to collide with the existing syntax of the 
> | Link header.
> Or perhaps use ':' as indicator? Causes double '::' on HTTP/1
> Date::1470205476
> Is this viable ?

It could but strictly speaking it will not be "::", it would just be ":"
to start the value, because your field above parses as ":1470205476" for
the value and will be rewritten like this along the path by many
implementations :

    Date: :1470205476


Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2016 06:49:17 UTC