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

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Tue, 24 April 2012 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
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 809C521F853C; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.376
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.376 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.223, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 fWZcJYdqsGwj; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7521321F853B; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydney (rrcs-98-101-148-48.midsouth.biz.rr.com [98.101.148.48]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q3O5uSxP001046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:56:29 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1335246990; bh=cNNYrDneXsrEue0Lb9FEMYqmN+5GR/Svy5NLDBci9+g=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=SyipDHmSqaJ/d54KpnJzKr+Fwih0gmNUSx4wJlQg6onEBa6+p16z3e4Do6sjG63xB W7kXayPqClRaff1k8nWpU/33xcrA200eM+nRYAWCyY2SrFg7K5CzgNqEyGrS1gxvhW fv2po9trH4qqCbzM4mswiZdduECPolHNt7fOCKO8=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: "'Michael Thomas'" <mike@mtcc.com>, "'Derek Atkins'" <derek@ihtfp.com>
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> <sjmvckqxzvm.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org> <4F9573D6.9080603@mtcc.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F9573D6.9080603@mtcc.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:56:32 -0400
Message-ID: <027701cd21df$0179de40$046d9ac0$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIAfr0IMYFP+Nqgkj5c4C1LFLKQ8QHu47mLATII4l0DGXo5TgGHkeTZAgqoPTsBaa3oyAIw2f/NAUQ5aEgCO5nRqQLuh1nuApXB+mECb+r+0JV73h6g
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: 'Tim Bray' <tbray@textuality.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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 05:56:32 -0000

Michael,

>  From a programming standpoint, JSON is just easier to deal with. Consider
> these two links:
> 
> http://php.net/manual/en/book.json.php
> 
> http://php.net/manual/en/book.xml.php
> 
> and tell me which you'd rather deal with. It's not huge, but it's not
> nothing either.

To be fair, this works well partly because of the language.  Works even
better in JavaScript.  It would work less well in C.  Here's just one
example:
http://www.digip.org/jansson/doc/2.3/

JSON bits do not map perfectly to C.  I thought C++ might be simpler, but
the first library I grabbed had library documentation that was 224 pages
long (libjson).

When I process simple XML like that from WebFinger, I tend to use a parser
that just steps through each node in order.  I don't need to decode the
whole "document" in memory and reference pieces and parts of it: one pass
over it and I grab what I need.  It's very simple to process the XML output
from WebFinger that way.

Paul