Am 19.04.2010 17:59, schrieb Mike Moore:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
<e...@hueniverse.com <mailto:e...@hueniverse.com>> wrote:
You are missing the point.
No, I get it. But what I like about OAuth 1.0 was its simplicity. I
don't see how allowing either the server or client
to suggest alternate encodings allows OAuth 2.0 to do more. I don't
think the added complexity is worth it. Not everything needs to be
configurable.
So what should be the singlemost encoding to be standardized? I would be
unable to choose one.
From my experiences, the optimal encoding primarily depends on the
capabilities and style guides of a particular client platform. JSON is
fine for JavaScript client, XML might be better for other client
platforms, command line scripts can probably easier be implemented using
plain text.
Our (proprietary) security token service offers different types of
transport encoding, e.g. json and xml. This is highly appreciated by the
client developers.
regards,
Torsten.
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
