On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Evan Gilbert <uid...@google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@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. > > Responses that are returned via a browser URL should > be application/x-www-form-urlencoded.
I'm not sure I understand here, could you explain in more detail? > These parameters are standard to parse > in any HTTP handling library Any HTTP handling library will claim to support it, but I doubt very many non-browser libraries match the HTML5 spec. Don't you find the requirements there to be complex relative to JSON? > and JSON only adds complexity and external > library requirements. Anything in a browser won't care either way. And won't other HTTP clients likely end up talking to a JSON API anyway? > > But if we support both JSON and application/x-www-form-urlencoded That is design-by-committee. Let's not do that. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
