Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed changes to WebFinger regarding XML vs JSON

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

I understand, but I think forcing servers to support both will hurt adoption, though not as much as requiring it on the client.

John B.


On 2012-08-28, at 3:03 PM, "Paul E. Jones" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> John,
>  
> Previously, JSON and XML were MTI on servers; clients could implement what they want.
>  
> If we make the proposed change, XML will be dropped on the server side.  The result will be that clients can only rely on JSON support.  XML support might be rare.
>  
> Paul
>  
> PS – My personal preference is still to require XML and JSON on the server, but I’m willing to give in on this one in order to reach group consensus.  I think this was the most significant point of contention.
>  
> From: John Bradley [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:26 PM
> To: Will Norris
> Cc: Paul E. Jones; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed changes to WebFinger regarding XML vs JSON
>  
> +1 JSON must be MTI for servers.
>  
> I am not opposed to servers supporting XML or other formats via content negotiation,  however clients need to be interoperable with servers using JSON, and not forced to support XML for some servers.
>  
> John B.
>  
> On 2012-08-27, at 7:13 PM, Will Norris <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> as one of the editors of said XML format, I'm +1 as well.  The reasons for pushing so heavily for the XML format back then are no longer really true.  Instead, all the active work is on JSON-based formats, so it makes sense to update webfinger as well.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Ok... we could also do that.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > On Behalf Of Blaine Cook
> > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 12:29 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed changes to WebFinger regarding XML vs
> > JSON
> >
> > +1 to this, and William and Tim's points.
> >
> > On 27 August 2012 18:26, Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > What William said about not needing the appendix. If you’re going to
> > > go through the pain of abandoning the XML version, why also go through
> > > the pain of writing an appendix, when there’s a perfectly good RFC in
> > > place to point to.  -T
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM, William Mills <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > >> I think this works in general but that there should be a mention of
> > >> it in the body of the spec citing the appendix.  Do we even need an
> > >> appendix though, we could simply cite 6415 as still normative for the
> > >> XML stuff but deprecated for new implementations.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]>
> > >> To: [e-mail]
> > >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > >> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:56 AM
> > >> Subject: [apps-discuss] Proposed changes to WebFinger regarding XML
> > >> vs JSON
> > >>
> > >> Folks,
> > >>
> > >> Mike, Gonzalo, and I have had some off-list discussions about
> > >> WebFinger and how to resolve the one sticky point that we think has
> > >> caused the most concern.  That point is whether we should we allow both
> > XML and JSON.
> > >>
> > >> We have heard proposals to "just pick one" and, while I appreciate
> > >> the reasoning, I could not help ignoring that
> > >>
> > >>   1) RFC 6415 exists and describes XML the single mandatory format
> > >>   2) Existing implementations use XML
> > >>
> > >> Nonetheless, I also cannot ignore the long-term value in selecting
> > >> one format we can be sure is widely supported consistently.  I'm
> > >> fairly confident that most want only JSON at this point, even though
> > >> most (if not
> > >> all) current implementations today use XML.  While I'm personally
> > >> favorable to using XML, I know my personal preferences are not
> > >> representative of everyone. :-)
> > >>
> > >> So what we discussed was mentioning XML (perhaps with examples), but
> > >> putting that in an appendix and saying the usage is historic.  What
> > >> this would mean is that the text acknowledges that there are servers
> > >> that might process both XML and JSON, and even older servers that
> > >> only process XML.  The main body of the document would only require
> > >> support for JSON from clients and servers.
> > >>
> > >> Before we make these changes to the text, I want to seek input from
> > >> the group.  I believe it would be acceptable, but I do not want those
> > >> changes to cause significant issues for anyone.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >> PS - Please follow-up only on the apps-discuss list.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> apps-discuss mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> apps-discuss mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > apps-discuss mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > apps-discuss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss