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

Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com> Mon, 19 April 2010 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <blowmage@gmail.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 971C128C1B0 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 VBmina1ZbN1f for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f195.google.com (mail-pz0-f195.google.com [209.85.222.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25BAB3A6BFA for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so3338443pzk.17 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=c94agvC4EhDmEKuIO2P50oy5UI29Z/k4zDViNTwlskE=; b=mQ/KpNmuwvrU9lc8F8wf47KKdQj3k74jd5tqzSUlBO/1IED3qDF9OYKAb7vXe0kTee 5lPSrKnWXP/x2zNNMPWCaQD8igUv4ytmopLo6gEOny7q4er3EMl2NpwgA8jOlpaN+ZTK hpDorPPrQHnclQcm5Z1GCDN5XB8nzEAcuZc/0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Si8u7CyvwJoX2amHDITcltZdMm81CaI/eQe3Smbo7ChwsDE0/wLnaKnbdAChsmtNjC ofHBRtaqxoA/3epU9I4RfGKXcxy5oT5YQfVNwsghkcHsYsf0/KRG8ZEjGG1z2ikIPJPZ BaYXqsMIlfM97lqQvSkHrYC4DqXsb3BAikUhE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.192.138 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20100419134825.134951nuzvi35hk4@webmail.df.eu>
References: <9890332F-E759-4E63-96FE-DB3071194D84@gmail.com> <90C41DD21FB7C64BB94121FBBC2E723438E30A379B@P3PW5EX1MB01.EX1.SECURESERVER.NET> <20100419134825.134951nuzvi35hk4@webmail.df.eu>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:57:16 -0600
Received: by 10.140.83.37 with SMTP id g37mr4295213rvb.222.1271689037149; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <h2yf5bedd151004190757q27927b65na3e5c5744a53526a@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Moore <blowmage@gmail.com>
To: Torsten Lodderstedt <torsten@lodderstedt.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd23c2a52f9d90484982d82"
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: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:38 -0000

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Torsten Lodderstedt <
torsten@lodderstedt.net> wrote:

>
>  We can also offer both and define a client request parameter (as long as
>> the server is required to make at least one format available).
>>
>
> +1 on this
>

-1  on this. As a client I don't want to have to support both form encoding
and json. Just make a single good decision and stick to it, please.