IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net> Wed, 21 April 2010 05:43 UTC

Return-Path: <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75543A6A2B for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.246, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KdCvzyB9UOPE for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtprelay01.ispgateway.de (smtprelay01.ispgateway.de [80.67.18.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67CB3A6872 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p4fff2ac8.dip.t-dialin.net ([79.255.42.200] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by smtprelay01.ispgateway.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <torsten@lodderstedt.net>) id 1O4Sif-0000mh-8F; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:43:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4BCE907E.1050509@lodderstedt.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:43:26 +0200
From: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; de; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
References: <9890332F-E759-4E63-96FE-DB3071194D84@gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E30A379B@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <20100419134825.134951nuzvi35hk4@webmail.df.eu> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E5C7F45E@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <t2wc334d54e1004200924ja0e7786u9b349a1931098f2a@mail.gmail.com> <l2ofd6741651004201245gdfc6e2a3j10a6e8a3e59f2072@mail.gmail.com> <1271793363.20679.6.camel@Dynamo> <j2wc334d54e1004201417s1bbcc025r76fdb607295f384c@mail.gmail.com> <9FB1C9A1-6E27-45B8-AFD5-649AD8591AFF@hueniverse.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11257784CD4@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
In-Reply-To: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E11257784CD4@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050406010703030005020403"
X-Df-Sender: 141509
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 05:43:51 -0000

I'm indetermined. Using JSON exclusively instead of form encoded 
parameters would give us the possibility to use structured parameters 
(in and outbound) instead of a flat parameter list, which I would like 
very much. But there are propably use cases where form encoded 
parameters are better suited.

regards,
Torsten.

Am 21.04.2010 02:04, schrieb Manger, James H:
>
> +1 to JSON as the one and only response format.
>
> It is common enough. It is simple enough. It is flexible enough. It is 
> unambiguously specified enough.
>
> I suggested a structure in the “application/credentials” thread.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg01920.html
>
> -- 
>
> James Manger
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email