Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)

Kevin Marks <kevinmarks@gmail.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <kevinmarks@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5010E21F8702; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zd7UaKa8oOkk; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1A521F8709; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qaea16 with SMTP id a16so229355qae.10 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wIcTNmGW8GGvGrY6+Je6twrKi+MbHjuZsKRxVJWc34I=; b=kEIfkRSp98CZOsV3o6VuU2lR/xSYw84D1kDvQYfnjSPlGQwihIMs95cRxzPbxhqxjT 8eKqQ7uobf4vebIMmHxOijS2ZtTmHJtk4fELrd1VkY2WJr6S1QOCgpgpfhOWpuRNrQzM K3rjU5ka+gVzpSz43O445Tub1rtoZCk06WopWmLlaBNvAOP8R5JKWDDZiQmkR13VTK1N dxrCXIiAhCz4s36oGDoxcvajQfjz1Y95v3VLX0lrAaWCgbvg2d3zLaxt6nYMU2ICNCGv Af7vyRgh3I6rLmKfKefMm3e+XFpvZshvbh087zLwX8Nq5FPZadBZa67j6eiJbWbSrYDe 6lGg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.209.4 with SMTP id ge4mr17423301qab.12.1335285788085; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.138.77 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <027701cd21df$0179de40$046d9ac0$@packetizer.com>
References: <423611CD-8496-4F89-8994-3F837582EB21@gmx.net> <4F8852D0.4020404@cs.tcd.ie> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280EFE8D@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <sjm1unn338j.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org> <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280FACC3@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <4E1F6AAD24975D4BA5B168042967394366490B2A@TK5EX14MBXC284.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <091401cd1ea3$e159be70$a40d3b50$@packetizer.com> <CAHBU6it3ZmTdK-mTwydXSRvGvZAYuv0FFR2EWLwdfTxQh4XV5g@mail.gmail.com> <091901cd1eb0$167a8ce0$436fa6a0$@packetizer.com> <sjmbommzdv4.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org> <4F917545.5080103@mtcc.com> <sjmvckqxzvm.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org> <4F9573D6.9080603@mtcc.com> <027701cd21df$0179de40$046d9ac0$@packetizer.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:43:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6ztsqiNw8M0EyzFK=9=DnGdyxz5MfeUC=m7NCUq9ifCC8d1g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Marks <kevinmarks@gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fab73128cb404be6f736f
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>, oauth@ietf.org, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] [apps-discuss] Web Finger vs. Simple Web Discovery (SWD)
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:43:10 -0000

I think you make JSON's point for it. It has a single, unambiguous,
bidirectional mapping to native data structures in all dynamic languages;
indeed that is its design goal.

XML does not map well to language structures, except in languages designed
explicitly to manipulate it. The duality of elements and attributes means
additional choices at each encode/decode boundary, and guaranteed ambiguity.

To continue the argument made by mark Nottingham and Tim Bray, having to
choose between attributes and elements at each point imposes the same
overhead at a different layer than having to choose between xml and json.

Yes, this natural mapping does not hold true for C, because C doesn't have
a native dictionary/hashtag data structure. C doesn't make XML or anything
else easy either, but C programmers are used to that.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>wrote;wrote:

> Michael,
>
> >  From a programming standpoint, JSON is just easier to deal with.
> Consider
> > these two links:
> >
> > http://php.net/manual/en/book.json.php
> >
> > http://php.net/manual/en/book.xml.php
> >
> > and tell me which you'd rather deal with. It's not huge, but it's not
> > nothing either.
>
> To be fair, this works well partly because of the language.  Works even
> better in JavaScript.  It would work less well in C.  Here's just one
> example:
> http://www.digip.org/jansson/doc/2.3/
>
> JSON bits do not map perfectly to C.  I thought C++ might be simpler, but
> the first library I grabbed had library documentation that was 224 pages
> long (libjson).
>
> When I process simple XML like that from WebFinger, I tend to use a parser
> that just steps through each node in order.  I don't need to decode the
> whole "document" in memory and reference pieces and parts of it: one pass
> over it and I grab what I need.  It's very simple to process the XML output
> from WebFinger that way.
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>