3 ms·
Not really a HTTP thing if it’s based on JSON response body, right?
by hcarvalhoalves 4y ago
Not really a HTTP thing if it’s based on JSON response body, right?
- mholt 4y agoIt's for HTTP APIs, and it's XML too.
- eyelidlessness 4y agoAs sibling comment mentioned it includes an XML format definition (which itself is surprisingly restrictive, and sort of idiosyncratic for XML), I also found it odd that blesses only those two formats. But Appendix B does give guidance for use in arbitrary formats/media types. Basically it’s format-agnostic, but it covers the two most common/likely scenarios. IMO that’s sensible enough, but it’s not ideal how much the format-agnostic aspect is deemphasized.
- treve 4y agoJSON is by far the best supported serialization format. Why does using that format make it less about HTTP?
- cryptonector 4y agoWhat about when HTTP carries images? Or anything other than HyperText? And what is HyperText anyways? Why isn't it HTML Transport Protocol? Well, it's because HTML is not the only HyperText out there -- you can embed links in XML, XHTML, JSON, and all sorts of other things, as well as in HTTP headers. HTTP isn't really only about HyperText, nor only about HTML -- it's about everything.
- Joker_vD 4y agoIt really should've been called GRRTP, Generic Request-Response Transfer Protocol, because there is nothing in it per se that's catered to hypertext transfer specifically. For comparison, look at FTP: it really is about the file transfer, you can tell that that is its application domain. Then look back at HTTP... yep, a generic request-response protocol, suitable for building pretty much anything else on top it.
- cryptonector 4y agoPretty much. But it is what it is, and it's too late to rename it now.