Menu
JSON has application/json as a standard. For protobuf some people use application/x-protobuf, but I saw something as odd as application/vnd.google.protobuf being proposed. Do we have an RFC or some other standard that I can use as a reference for this?
802
The Content-Type representation header is used to indicate the original media type of the resource (prior to any content encoding applied for sending). Meanwhile, protobuf is serialization/de-serialization schema/library.
Protocol buffers, or Protobuf, is a binary format created by Google to serialize data between different services. Google made this protocol open source and now it provides support, out of the box, to the most common languages, like JavaScript, Java, C#, Ruby and others.
Protobuf is a binary format, so working with it becomes tedious.
Protobuf strings are always valid UTF-8 strings. See the Language Guide: A string must always contain UTF-8 encoded or 7-bit ASCII text. (And ASCII is always also valid UTF-8.)
There's an expired IETF proposal that suggests application/protobuf. It does not address the question how the receiving side could determine the particular message type. Previous discussions suggested using a parameter to specify package and message, e.g. application/protobuf; proto=org.some.Message
In practice, the types you listed seem to be indeed the ones in use, for example the monitoring system Prometheus uses application/vnd.google.protobuf, and the Charles web debugging proxy recognizes application/x-protobuf; messageType="x.y.Z".
77
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
