Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON

[Robert Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <[e-mail]> wrote:
> If we end up with JSON as the only *core* format, we can still extend the
> protocol in another spec to add a format request parameter with other
> serializations.

I think that's the right way to look at it.

The fact that JSON is always Unicode and the character encoding is
easily determined by examining the first few bytes should be enough to
make the group jump for it.[1] You can skip all the inaccurate
metadata in the HTTP headers for both requests and responses. And even
kind of hobbled embedded implementations can do ASCII only and we'll
pretend it's UTF-8. :)

But maybe none of this is a problem for existing implementations? The
spec seems strangely silent on internationalization.

- Rob

[1] noooooo: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/association-of-controls-and-forms.html#url-encoded-form-data

-- 

Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."