Re: [OAUTH-WG] Definition of XML response format

["William Mills" <[e-mail]>]

Why use CDATA?  Why not just use unary tags with all the data in
attributes?

	 

	From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Andrew Arnott
	Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 5:56 AM
	To: OAuth WG ([e-mail])
	Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Definition of XML response format

	 

	In the absence of anyone else volunteering an XML format, what
would you say to this as a proposal (because the implementation of which
happens to be simple for me):
	
	<root type="object">
	   <access_token type="string">some access token</access_token>
	   <refresh_token type="string">some refresh
token</refresh_token>
	   <expires_in type="number">235298298</expires_in>
	</root>
	
	So the main points here is:

	1.	no namespace 
	2.	root tag is called "root" 
	3.	each parameter is an element 
	4.	each element has a type parameter that is either string,
number, or object to assist the deserializer to understnad how to cast
the contents.

	We may axe #4.  In fact we may want to switch all the elements
to attributes because it's slightly more compact which might help small
devices.
	
	--
	Andrew Arnott
	"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to
the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre
	
	

	On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Andrew Arnott
<[e-mail]> wrote:

	Where is the definition of how a auth server response in XML
format should look?  At the least we need an XML namespace and root node
name.
	
	--
	Andrew Arnott
	"I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to
the death your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre