On 7/17/23, 11:01 AM, "regext on behalf of kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de>" <regext-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:regext-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of kowa...@denic.de <mailto:kowa...@denic.de>> wrote: Am 17.07.23 um 13:36 schrieb Hollenbeck, Scott: > >> As an aside note of the considerations at point 1, would like to know >> the current WG's opinion about how relevant is making an RDAP server >> easily accessible by a web browser. > [SAH] It's important to support *all* types of clients if possible. Anything > less can lead to inconsistent user experiences, and that's bad for RDAP's > long-term viability.
[PK] if usage of only web browser is concerned, it would likely never support application/rdap-x+json out of the box and send appropriate headers with the request. Maybe with an extension, then not being a pure browser anymore, but more a dedicated RDAP client. An end user just operating the web browser won't be able to set arbitrary http headers. Query parameters would be possible, but are not considered by the authors (Appendix A.2). So the choice is between not supporting pure web browser as a client with this method, or allow for alternative with query parameters on top of http headers (a bit like http-equiv but for request rather than for response). [JS] This is a fair point, Pawel. Would you suggest considering the latter method (query parameters) as well, given it may not survive a redirect? Jasdip _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
