There's a disconnect here. Mnot and I (at least) have argued that there are very specific problems and costs associated with going multi-format. I’ve heard lots of people say "Well, I support multi-format” but I haven’t heard any specific responses explaining why those costs and problems aren’t real, or why the benefits are sufficiently great that we should just accept them.
Mnot: JSON or XML: Just Decide http://www.mnot.net/blog/2012/04/13/json_or_xml_just_decide tbray: Case Study: Atom and/or JSON http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2009/04/29/Model-and-Syntax#p-1 Would this work better if I summarized the problems here inline in this thread? It may be the pace that people’s IETF/email workflow is such that they’re not able comfortably to consult external references? -Tim On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Derek Atkins <de...@ihtfp.com> 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. > > <OAUTH Chair Hat> > > Note that this is a replay of the historical "MUST Implement" versus > "MUST Use" arguments. Just because the server MUST IMPLEMENT JSON and > XML does not mean that a Client must use both (or even that a client > must implement both). It is perfectly reasonable and generally > acceptable to have a server that provides data in multiple formats > whereas the client only supports a subset and specifies which format(s) > are acceptable. > > </OAUTH Char Hat> > > -derek > > -- > Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 > de...@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com > Computer and Internet Security Consultant _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
