- From: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
- Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 09:05:19 -0700
- To: Bil Corry <bil@corry.biz>
- CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, Brandon Sterne <bsterne@mozilla.com>, public-web-security@w3.org
Bil Corry wrote on 5/28/2011 8:57 AM: > Adam Barth wrote on 4/28/2011 12:39 AM: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Gervase Markham<gerv@mozilla.org> wrote: >>> On 26/04/11 21:17, Adam Barth wrote: >>>> Surely form-urlencoding is more widely implemented by HTTP servers >>>> than JSON. Every HTTP server made in the past decade and a half >>>> understands form-urlencoding. Moreover, they'll continue to >>>> understand it if/when JSON goes out of fashion (e.g., assuming >>>> <form> and form elements are here to stay). >>> >>> JSON has the advantage of being human-readable, which form-urlencoding >>> really doesn't. JSON is now baked into the web platform in the form of the >>> JSON object, so is unlikely to "go out of fashion". >> >> Essentially all HTTP servers that receive data from browsers receive >> data in form-urlencoding because that's how the form element works. >> It's far and away the most common way browsers send key/value pairs to >> HTTP servers. I just don't see a compelling reason why this API >> should be randomly different. > > I agree, I'd rather receive it as form-urlencoding but I'm wondering if the way the report is sent could be an option for those who prefer JSON. Or the reverse -- I'm not attached to which is the default. - Bil
Received on Saturday, 28 May 2011 16:05:52 UTC