IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> Wed, 05 May 2010 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mscurtescu@google.com>
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 946583A6A58 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2010 11:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.927
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.927 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 39HbYAwOqyMr for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2010 11:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF943A697C for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2010 11:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.85]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o45IaD3P011061 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2010 11:36:13 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1273084573; bh=zFOz0vqYYRnoK1GztFElv26XP1M=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=AGfQh2JiCcKd3lCRdC93FYLEjT5TobER3TAUbu2RCDG3P825VuBwEeBvZGnZ+TiSE 6LkQF2gF//meIf+80j1Lw==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=PpgmPv0SXLvidm6bHC6Sy2ZatXsJAUrDuhuDbo6mn/bbuA9A3p0w2J8P+Qq3tJe6Q nP2Wv8gXZ85fZ9OLvg7IA==
Received: from pxi2 (pxi2.prod.google.com [10.243.27.2]) by wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o45IZraS010838 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2010 11:36:12 -0700
Received: by pxi2 with SMTP id 2so2650961pxi.25 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 May 2010 11:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.88.33 with SMTP id l33mr5817298rvb.4.1273084572274; Wed, 05 May 2010 11:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.14.15 with HTTP; Wed, 5 May 2010 11:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <k2wa9eb35851005051129m155a612aiee54e422e48deb80@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9890332F-E759-4E63-96FE-DB3071194D84@gmail.com> <4BD9E1E3.7060107@lodderstedt.net> <7C01E631FF4B654FA1E783F1C0265F8C4A3EF0B0@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <z2yf5bedd151004291440g17693f8du9e19a649bef925e4@mail.gmail.com> <w2odaf5b9571004291509x8895a73k384a4b4ddb12b794@mail.gmail.com> <20100430105935.20255m8kdythy6sc@webmail.df.eu> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723439323D0DB0@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <AANLkTilA40XmbIShf3m139IodJRCWUvAouyuHbWcgga7@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimaQsJGf-GHWYa486GNKquhZaRPjwzGxdqp4Viv@mail.gmail.com> <k2wa9eb35851005051129m155a612aiee54e422e48deb80@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 11:35:52 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTil2AGTwQsGAeCQaONFh4EuLZUWBuJvlK2SUYCFP@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Jawed <johnjawed@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] application/x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON (Proposal)
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, 05 May 2010 18:36:33 -0000

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:29 AM, John Jawed <johnjawed@gmail.com> wrote:
> JSON markup is lighter than XML markup.

Yes, but I don't think XML was an option anymore.

The question is between:
1. application/x-www-form-urlencoded
2. application/x-www-form-urlencoded and JSON

Marius


>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Evan Gilbert <uidude@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ... and JSON only adds complexity and external
>>> library requirements.
>>>
>>> I'm not positive we need to support JSON at all.
>>
>> Tend to agree.
>>
>> Other than being nice, what other advantages does JSON provide?
>>
>> Keep in mind that most people voted for one format only, and that is
>> clearly not possible, at a minimum we have to support both
>> application/x-www-form-urlencoded and JSON.
>>
>> Marius
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email