Hannes: While I'm clearly honored by your interest in me and my activities, it
is not my intent to artificially pump up a document on which I am a co-author.
Everyone on this list knows I am an author on it as we have discussed it
exhaustively for the past month and a half. I was merely indicat
On 8 May 2012 16:55, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> The discussions around XML vs. JSON are unfortunately also hiding the real
> important discussion, namely privacy.
>
> We are actually building, without further thinking about it, a mechanism that
> offers worse privacy properties compared to what
Gonzalo: it is great that you, as a co-author, support your own document but I
don't think it is particular helpful.
On May 4, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) wrote:
> I support this doc being adopted as starting point for WG discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On May
Hi Murray,
it is great to see that you are pushing things forward here but I believe you
are going a bit too fast.
>From the comments I have seen so far I got the impression that many got
>confused by UR schemes: mailto: and the acct: are different.
The discussions around XML vs. JSON are un
Blaine,
Your issues were not ignored, but I do not think there was consensus one
way or the other on them. Your points were:
1) Recommendation to use JSON only
2) A question about what the JSON format would look like
3) Direct vs. indirect queries (i.e., whether to use resource parameter)
I
