Re: [apps-discuss] [rest-discuss] Re: New Internet-Draft: JSON Hypertext Application Language

Nick Lombard <> Thu, 09 May 2013 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6A521F86B2 for <>; Thu, 9 May 2013 13:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.27
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.706, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W8FunkD4xEVR for <>; Thu, 9 May 2013 13:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2392821F86BB for <>; Thu, 9 May 2013 13:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k14so2378701oag.8 for <>; Thu, 09 May 2013 13:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Lb3zddRK08jvvr+RE+9nC0/D3FJjMEx0m7TGYySqzxk=; b=HB4cTZQEh6PGCQUo0NM8rETNkifMbj9wT+QJBWiS5Vqvnvkw+v+9wcxllrPZkSwKmf nSbltX9wSOyA49z6WmjI957foDiET/sA3yK7W73zIUQhvVeNAytioyfqGmfSOEgpBJLW 5zgY+erS+18Bo01VXIWsW7KhGgCnUq+OQkHOQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=Lb3zddRK08jvvr+RE+9nC0/D3FJjMEx0m7TGYySqzxk=; b=K6GIec0sE9v1YcuriwHlHz/h6S4kl6YA4HwCHCmuDDvOpGDfsfiZThDoAhwYBgAelP s5jJPGU1ByB4ppVlon+RCvEQKhcLINlZzO+7ln4BFI0SDIyj1evLcBUT76YtIiJ71SMU 9pi36VvoILXvvFzwdrJNTYDMYyypkDjyhMXwvbF/ooc9Ke6nEVxsRc0Q1YQGUK6ei3xJ fGiFWA2p2R1wIuM7upGEXvHg7t+wtE8QYtAioPe6q00/d4jKMJOBRSTdNQINEovbUyEw cIMwF8SKmi4aO/UdjV4frCP1efpmhxw4U+/5P2Yo/5Mh9O1qmxXakVQpTdRPnnUKJb0B QOTg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id om15mr5302577oeb.45.1368129606656; Thu, 09 May 2013 13:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 9 May 2013 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Nick Lombard <>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 21:59:46 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: kl4QaVYw-ZEMb4YEwwDOjDrAyMQ
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b4179b3368c2f04dc4e7f33"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnPmW++bS57RcCeoMbp1YE+XRfdtflkUQrOaMN0YUA/RgtaKDVFmQUvrL5dzwe9zxBMZCo1
Cc: REST-Discuss Discussion Group <>, IETF Apps Discuss <>,, "" <>, "" <>,
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [rest-discuss] Re: New Internet-Draft: JSON Hypertext Application Language
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 20:00:18 -0000

Hi Craig

Excuse me piping in here so late after the fact but this is something I
come across often.

On 13 February 2013 23:42, Craig McClanahan <> wrote:


On the topic of in band versus out of band, the latter would probably be
> more "pure" -- but in band is much easier for client developers to deal
> with.

Why do we perceive it easier to design and implement a custom wheel instead
of the one you already use?

>  They have to access the JSON or XML or whatever content of the response
> body anyway.  Requiring them to deal with HTTP headers or whatever as well
> is extra work.
> Without a HTTP Request header you cannot request content from a HTTP
If successful you will receive a HTTP response header which may define a
body portion.

Dealing with HTTP headers is not optional.

At some point you'd expect the realisation to sink in, suggesting we use
anything else is unnecessary extra work... but it doesn't.