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