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

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@mtcc.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 4C8FE21F8746; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6]
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 dxjD55S2QQcd; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtcc.com (mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCD9F21F8745; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from piolinux.mtcc.com (65-172-208-69.dsl.volcano.net [65.172.208.69]) (authenticated bits=0) by mtcc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3NFN7Q6014312 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:23:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4F9573D6.9080603@mtcc.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:23:02 -0700
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 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>
In-Reply-To: <sjmvckqxzvm.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1434; t=1335194589; x=1336058589; c=relaxed/simple; s=thundersaddle.kirkwood; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=mtcc.com; i=mike@mtcc.com; z=From:=20Michael=20Thomas=20<mike@mtcc.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OAUTH-WG]=20[apps-discuss]=20Web=20Fin ger=20vs.=20Simple=20Web=20Discovery=0A=20(SWD) |Sender:=20 |To:=20Derek=20Atkins=20<derek@ihtfp.com> |Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859-1=3B=20 format=3Dflowed |Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |MIME-Version:=201.0; bh=55hjgRXMjNzDwpneJDH98T6BCdCvVYICzQfD1k8US7M=; b=uCncYxBwftAQRn1tgsmTzjfpEENgmnXWhTyB7GztEtN5JYqjlQhzOsAa2M o5iTU+/UXlr4m0sJwcv1gM+CF5nsKTuzxFTGqDexLXCFrzzm+QJMz4k83Xi5 VHq6tyQ87p6lmI3lDbOvYdM6Hq+6guIF2yB18i2COJYJDECA4RJ2Y=;
Authentication-Results: ; v=0.1; dkim=pass header.i=mike@mtcc.com ( sig from mtcc.com/thundersaddle.kirkwood verified; ); dkim-asp=pass header.From=mike@mtcc.com
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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:23:16 -0000

Derek Atkins wrote:
> Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> writes:
> 
>> Why not MUST ASN.1 while you're at it? JSON has won in case
>> you'all haven't noticed it.
> 
> Well, now that you mention it...   ;-)
> 
> But seriously, we're basing this work on an RFC that was just release
> six months ago and it requires XML.  Why be so quick to drop something
> we just published half a year ago?  So maybe in 6 months we drop JSON
> and add the next big thing?  Come on, Mike.
> 
> I agree, we should definitely support JSON.  But I also think we should
> support XML.  The client can do what it wants, which is where want the
> light weight implementation.

I think you're probably misunderstanding me. I'm (I believe) with Tim
in saying "pick one". Just one. For clients and servers. And I'm only
saying that JSON is preferable because it has pretty much taken
over -- I see JSON all the time with webbish ajax-y data stuff and XML
almost never unless it's something vaguely markup-like. JSON is clean
in a what you see is what you get kind of way, and I'm puzzled by people
calling a 6 year old RFC a "flavor of the day" -- c'mon.

 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.

Mike

Mike