📅 Original date posted:2011-12-19
🗒️ Summary of this message: Slush suggests that there is no need for a payload format like JSON or XML, and all that is required is an address in response.
📝 Original message:In my opinion, there's not necessary any payload format (json, xml,
multipart). In keeping stuff KISS, everything we need is just an address in
response + potentially some stuff like HTTP redirects (for providing
additional compatibility for proposal of bitcoin URIs with "amount",
"label" and other parts). I don't see reason why we need some extra payload
yet.
slush
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jordan Mack <jordanmack at parhelic.com>wrote:
> If the idea is to "KISS", and provide a method that is both quick and
> easy to implement for the average developer, then JSON is a stand out
> option. Using HTTP for the data interchange will make things difficult
> for a lot of developers if multipart responses are used. JSON will be
> greeted with open arms.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20111219/33ea8eb3/attachment.html>;
slush [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ad…gl2p6
2023-06-07 02:44:49
in reply to nevent1q…4a70
Author Public Key
npub1ad7209g90jnu400x74quws0xv8gpxs2fxnjexnpwqnrxwa39exdq5gl2p6Published at
2023-06-07 02:44:49Event JSON
{
"id": "34046a2609ada878cc2c30c1247eea0cd61b36fedc43fb675339aafa5fc15089",
"pubkey": "eb7ca795057ca7cabde6f541c741e661d013414934e5934c2e04c6677625c99a",
"created_at": 1686105889,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"247922e9146ee6b54a634fc05ad7a489892c01debcd0510d008be95a47f6db80",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4aaedb59f80864504bbd2b0d35557afbcde22498fd5535bd7bd5bdbb306a4547",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3900ae5aebfcedc10896ff09261ba18b16c6812fe8d8bea34333d56fdb4826d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-12-19\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Slush suggests that there is no need for a payload format like JSON or XML, and all that is required is an address in response.\n📝 Original message:In my opinion, there's not necessary any payload format (json, xml,\nmultipart). In keeping stuff KISS, everything we need is just an address in\nresponse + potentially some stuff like HTTP redirects (for providing\nadditional compatibility for proposal of bitcoin URIs with \"amount\",\n\"label\" and other parts). I don't see reason why we need some extra payload\nyet.\n\nslush\n\nOn Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jordan Mack \u003cjordanmack at parhelic.com\u003ewrote:\n\n\u003e If the idea is to \"KISS\", and provide a method that is both quick and\n\u003e easy to implement for the average developer, then JSON is a stand out\n\u003e option. Using HTTP for the data interchange will make things difficult\n\u003e for a lot of developers if multipart responses are used. JSON will be\n\u003e greeted with open arms.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20111219/33ea8eb3/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "50b5f958b8944948c54dbe06f0b4fb0dc852c0e2df0af334b933f70de3d2369d4a1616bf122840ac474f22742533c0cee947a48a783178ea2394c7af21c5c60b"
}