> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marius Scurtescu [mailto:mscurte...@google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:03 PM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: OAuth WG
> Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Format of user-agent response parameters
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
> <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> > Why is the token returned in the fragment using form-encoding? This
> > makes no sense. It should be a JSON string for the following reasons:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. All token responses should be the same, which will enable
> > returning structured responses in the future as needed.
>
> They cannot all be the same. response_type=code has the response in the
> query parameter, so I think we should stick with flat name/value pairs.
*Token* responses. When a code is returned alone, it is not a token response...
>
> > 2. Using fragments is specifically done to accommodate the
> > user-agent environment, which means JavaScript. Why create extra work
> > when JSON.parse() does it for you for free.
>
> The argument was that it is a somewhat more difficult to safely parse JSON in
> JavaScript (maybe I remember wrong).
Now that most browsers support JSON.parse(), it is trivial. I think the point
was the danger of using eval() which is very bad but common practice.
> Unless we have a good reason to change to JSON, considering it is late in the
> game, I think we should not make changes.
I agree this is a breaking change that has little immediate value. But long
term it will provide a significant benefit in having a consistent token
representation across the two formats. On the other hand, JSON will also
require encoding since '{' and '"' are not allowed unescaped in the fragment.
Oh well.
EHL
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
