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

["Manger, James H" <[e-mail]>]

> multiple response formats

Quite a few people (most?) have (often strongly) favoured a single response format, and most of them prefer JSON. I agree: JSON for responses, application/x-www-form-urlencoded for requests.


> Proposed changes to section 3.5.2 should be applied to
> 3.5.3, 3.6.1., 3.7.1., 3.7.2, and 4., too.

I hope we can reduce the duplication by describing the format once only.


> parameters are encoded straight-forward as flat JSON object

It would be better to use the basic JSON types, not just strings for everything.
For instance, 
  "expires_in": 3600
Instead of
  "expires_in": "3600"
Forcing all values to be strings may simplify mapping between multiple formats, but it hinders idiomatic use of the formats (which is important). This is another reason to pick a single format.


> application/json

There are lots of application/XXXX+xml media types that are better to use than the generic application/xml. <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3023#appendix-A>
Is the same true for JSON?
I think an application/credential media type would be more helpful (perhaps with a "+json" suffix if that is common practise).


--
James Manger