IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 23 April 2012 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 DFA5A21F859F for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.076
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 27mJrbwubipR for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E59221F8568 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q3N7FQCt011283 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:15:26 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 09ea_bce8_197ae8e0_8d14_11e1_ade9_001d096c5782; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:15:25 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:38331) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15BB5EB> for <oauth@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:15:25 +0900
Message-ID: <4F95018C.4010806@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:15:24 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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> <4F921E53.8030109@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <4F921E53.8030109@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:24:21 -0700
Cc: 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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:15:36 -0000

On 2012/04/21 11:41, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> On 04/20/2012 03:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Why not MUST ASN.1 while you're at it? JSON has won in case
>> you'all haven't noticed it.
>
> Well, I also remember when XML won over ASN.1, or
> was that some RPC thing? Seems like a new format wins
> about every five years or so, once the last winner
> gets enough crap added. (JSON pointer seems like the
> start of a nice slippery slope to me.)

There's a bit of that indeed. However, as others have noted, JSON is 
indeed better suited for exchanging *data* between programs, in 
particular between scripting languages, because their main datatypes are 
numbers and strings, and their main data structures are arrays and 
hashes (or whatever they are called).

In contrast to that, XML originated as a document format. It's way 
better than JSON for documents, and for mixed document/data situations, 
but if all you do is exchanging data (structures) between programs, JSON 
wins.

Regards,   Martin.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email