W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2018

Re: structured headers "why not JSON" FAQ

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:52:45 -0600
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <495d2852-64b6-b834-851f-be2465f80497@measurement-factory.com>
On 06/13/2018 05:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2018-06-13 12:16, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> On 13 Jun 2018, at 8:12 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>> I would say that the incentives are exactly the same for the two
>>> variants. If the spec makes a mandatory requirement on the recipient
>>> that is easy to implement, why would implementations choose to follow
>>> it for SH but not for JFV?

>> Because the option of deploying a JSON implementation *without* those
>> constraints is extremely easy.

> I don't buy that argument.

That argument is valid IMO. If I am writing a simple piece of code that
needs to deal with a structured header, I am going to use an existing
parsing/packing library.

* In JFV case, the probability of choosing a JSON library without
restrictions is non-negligible (because there are lots of such
libraries, many are popular/built-in, and I may be using one of them
already).

* The probability of choosing an SH library without restrictions is
about zero (because such libraries will not exist).

Alex.
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2018 15:53:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:21 UTC