IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Wed, 05 May 2010 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@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 DDB193A699C for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2010 09:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.202, BAYES_50=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6]
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 ASo1W-gjTWS9 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 May 2010 09:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1481A28C0F4 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 May 2010 09:43:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws9 with SMTP id 9so253694vws.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 May 2010 09:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Yclg4hCvnHycYc1e1BaEXmjcOD3vgzHQ1aWY/fQixw4=; b=gRqT3m06p4hvYZ4meQUr+Dh0ItkU+GuG9OSQm9GUflZN0XABLcTRE9m38fNOKDjRYi D/z+PgcDzGvUfavkH+w9u1YL0hDnm6GxheYRa1pF+5LyAZsruJuprmDkIusnOnhTP6Bu RSAeea8scruM9TUo6d5VB+AFPpEO1zKPL4/1o=
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=axUvklRS9BKGbBPxcwd6E3MjJpZyKf+h0hHordwzjguvR/0NR+9QmkBwCEPBGjAA+b ItxIh5jgRbwApxkd3FWEXl5cpgepTH5cn2/yorvCkElYnpLJd0oID9tZEodGExiKCkvF /1OMkzuKvewCYJkFOol3fVGCSED0rh7B4mm4w=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.245.68 with SMTP id lt4mr4507330qcb.71.1273077783795; Wed, 05 May 2010 09:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.99.142 with HTTP; Wed, 5 May 2010 09:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik3NSJynWfiNWovruPEOT2Y6G1zcWPFOaS_pHdy@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9890332F-E759-4E63-96FE-DB3071194D84@gmail.com> <s2zc334d54e1004281425x5e714eebwcd5a91af593a62ac@mail.gmail.com> <v2j68fba5c51004282044o3a5f96cfucb1157d3884d8cd2@mail.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> <AANLkTik3NSJynWfiNWovruPEOT2Y6G1zcWPFOaS_pHdy@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 12:43:03 -0400
Message-ID: <g2n68fba5c51005050943l4a3a15fapaf92e59f7eab2b5e@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org" <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 16:43:32 -0000

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Marius Scurtescu <mscurtescu@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
>> I'll add something to the draft and we'll discuss it. There is enough consensus on a single JSON response format.
>
> Yesterday I got the following feedback:
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Greg Robbins <grobbins@google.com> wrote:
>> Using JSON on the iPhone requires developers to drag in source code for a
>> third-party library
...
>
> If the above is true, then I am not so sure about JSON anymore. Lots
> of phones and devices will have problems with it.

It is true that some devices do not ship with JSON libraries, but I
think the concern is overblown. A JSON library is going to be
something like 1000 lines of code, and orders of magnitude faster and
smaller than an XML parser. For instance, a Blackberry developer would
need to include the org.json packages that come bundled with Android,
but they are tiny: http://www.json.org/java/index.html

Besides that, the group should skate to where the puck will be, as it
were. Every platform that can handle Unicode can and will have a JSON
library in short order. I once saw a WG waste tons of time debating
the capabilities of J2ME handsets that are now basically irrelevant in
terms of Internet traffic share.

-- 

Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email