rich1.0npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6https://nostr.ae/npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2011-12-19 🗒️ Summary of this message: HTTP standard is sufficient, and bloating payload with JSON/XML is unnecessary. The argument for using JSON in server RPC is flawed. 📝 Original message:I agree with Luke that HTTP standard has everything necessary and bloating payload with json/xml is not necessary. Btw that argument "we have json in client already" seems pretty wrong, because json in server rpc solves another problem (and solve it in wrong way, because of data type issues, but it's another story). slush On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Jordan Mack <jordanmack at parhelic.com>wrote: > I thought that JSON support was fairly common these days. I personally > prefer XML in most cases, but since JSON is already used with the RPC, > it seemed like a natural fit here. Binary data can be base64 encoded, > although I'm not sure why you would need to send back binary in an alias > response. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20111219/fabde08e/attachment.html>