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:


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to