- From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:59:30 +0900
- To: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>
- Cc: Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAH9hSJb=mWdHP8xcBis8-jhWgQTfN-cgQXVV3eCyT4U8JYQHZA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com> wrote: > > > 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? > Did you mean the prefix? > > application/webstream; protocol=... seems more legit and most > subprotocols are not registered media types either.. > > I skimmed RFC 6838. I think application/xxx+suffix would be subject to the same rule for general rule for media types even if +suffix is registered. We can choose to put the protocol parameter under control of IANA, but yes, we'll have options to decide whether we make it so or not. > Re: the actual parameter "protocol", we may want to mention it similar to > utf-8 checking, as a future concern for providing websocket compatibility. > > I'm adding a section about that. For WebSocket compatibility, its value should follow the token ABNF. > > > >> >> <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 09:00:24 UTC