- From: Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:08:56 +0300
- To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
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. > * 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 Tuesday, 25 October 2016 09:09:32 UTC