Even if the stream of bytes has no semantic meaning without the .proto, its "format" is still protobuf binary, so the MIME type makes some sense even if it is not sufficient.
Putting a ref to the appropriate .proto in the HTTP headers REST-style seems sensible - loosely similar to declaring a schema or dtd on an XML file: http://blog.foemmel.com/2008/07/restful-protocol-buffers.html Michael Abato On Mar 9, 5:19 pm, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote: > We haven't defined a MIME type. > Does it make sense to define a MIME type for protocol buffers in general, as > opposed to MIME types for individual protocols? The latter makes more sense > to me, since there's not much you can do with a protocol buffer without > knowing its type. > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Marc Gravell <marc.grav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As part of ongoing work looking at RPC (over a range of transports), > > one thing that keeps cropping up is sending messages via a RESTful API > > over http[s] (so the method to invoke it part of the URI, with the > > message as the body); pretty trivial to do, but I wonder: is there any > > common MIME type that anyone has used for such? Or just application/ > > octet-stream? > > > Marc Gravell --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
