- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:09:57 +0200
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hmmm. It's good to have a FAQ, but it shouldn't be misleading... > A.1. Why Not JSON? > > Earlier proposals for structured headers were based upon JSON [RFC8259], but failed to get traction for a variety of reasons, including: > > Interoperability issues (e.g., regarding large numbers and objects with duplicate members) <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-jfv-08.html#interop> > Difficulties specifying field values using ABNF [RFC5234] Please elaborate. What are the difficulties, and how is this different in structured headers? > Need to encode JSON to appear in HTTP headers, thereby making it not-JSON Not true. > Reluctance to embed a JSON parser in some HTTP implementations (e.g., servers and intermediaries) Well, there was also reluctance to add yet another parser, when JSON is already available. Just saying. > Concerns about JSON’s ability to nest to arbitrary depths, and the resulting memory commitment that might involve If this is really a problem, a simple fix would be to restrict the size in characters, just as in structured headers. Exactly the same problem. > Feelings that JSON doesn’t “look right” in HTTP headers True, it's not pretty. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2018 07:10:23 UTC