You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We need to define the correct return formats for WADO-RS and WADO-URI endpoints and fix them. This is related to #59 and further discussion can be found in links there
Is the correct format this?
WADO Path
Return format
WADO-RS instance
multipart/related
WADO-URI instance
application/dicom (DICOM Part 10)
Are we going to support/respect accept header sent from the client? which types we need to support?
I created this issue to start a discussion to define the best solution. We appreciate any input @pieper, @swederik, @hackermd, @lassoan
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The retrieve instance resource is a bit of a mess. In principle, clients can request instances as Part10 files (multipart/related; type="application/dicom"; transfer-syntax=*) or as bulkdata (multipart/related; type="application/octet-stream"; transfer-syntax=* for uncompressed images and multipart/related; type="image/*" for compressed images). The latter is a bad idea in my opinion, since the resource may not actually represent an instance, but only parts of it (i.e., data elements above a given size threshold, such as Pixel Data). However, an origin server that would claim compliance with the standard would need to support all of these media types as far as I know.
On the client side, I decided to always request instances from the origin server using multipart/related; type="application/dicom".
We need to define the correct return formats for WADO-RS and WADO-URI endpoints and fix them. This is related to #59 and further discussion can be found in links there
Is the correct format this?
Are we going to support/respect accept header sent from the client? which types we need to support?
I created this issue to start a discussion to define the best solution. We appreciate any input @pieper, @swederik, @hackermd, @lassoan
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: