On 20 April 2012 16:40, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > On 04/20/2012 07:17 AM, Derek Atkins wrote: > >> Paul, >> >> "Paul E. Jones"<pau...@packetizer.com> writes: >> >> Tim, >>> >>> I do not agree that it's harmful. If I removed the WF discussion off the >>> table, I'm still having a hard time buying into everything you said in >>> the >>> blog post. >>> >>> I implement various web services, largely for my own use. Usually, I >>> implement all of them in XML, JSON, plain text (attribute/value pairs), >>> AND >>> JavaScript (for JSONP). For simple services, it's not hard. I do it >>> because I sometimes have different wants/desires on the client side. >>> (For >>> more complex ones, I use XML.) >>> >> As an individual (and not the chair of OAUTH) I believe that the server >> should be allowed, no encouraged, to support multiple formats for data >> retrieval. I also believe that clients should be allowed to choose only >> one. I am fine with JSON being Mandatory to Implement. I am NOT okay >> with making it the only one, and I am even less okay with mandating it >> is the ONLY one. I would say MUST JSON, MUST (or possibly SHOULD -- you >> can convince me either way) XML, and MAY for anything else that people >> feel stronly about (although I feel in 2012 XML and JSON are the two >> best). I also feel it is okay to say that a client MUST implement one >> of JSON or XML, and MAY implement more. >> >> >> > Why not MUST ASN.1 while you're at it? JSON has won in case > you'all haven't noticed it. >
+1 Also bear in mind that when people say "XML" here, it's a specific subset of XML namely "application/xrd+xml". > Mike > > ______________________________**_________________ > OAuth mailing list > OAuth@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/oauth<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
