On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Kris Zyp wrote: ... I fully agree -- I would prefer using proper content/media types, since those do serve
Message 1 of 5
, Jul 21, 2009
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Kris Zyp<kriszyp@...> wrote:
>> AFAICT, very few JSON services use application/json, so your code
>> should be tolerant of responses with other Content-Type header values.
> Yes, the web is awash with abuses, so it is wise to be tolerant of
> responses, but I wouldn't recommend contributing to the mess. Dojo's
> JSON HTTP/REST client (JsonRestStore) does properly set the Content-Type
> to application/json for same-origin PUT and POST requests. Needless to
> say that is the client I would recommend :). (of course I am biased, and
> I am sure web_send is good as well, Tyler's work is excellent).
I fully agree -- I would prefer using proper content/media types,
since those do serve purpose esp. regarding intermediaries.
Another thing to consider is that JSON is hardly only sent by
browsers: most of my own use cases are for services communicating (or
in general non-browser clients). So it is not reasonable to assume
that most decisions be driven by what browsers do -- yes, JSON is
convenient for that use case, but applicability extends well beyond
-+ Tatu +-
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer.
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.