Re: [OAUTH-WG] nits about definition of using form parameters

On 2012-06-19 00:17, Eran Hammer wrote: I believe the UTF-8 piece came from Brian Eaton a while back because of some security issue identified at Google. ... If there are security reasons to send an undefined media type parameter then they really should be spelled out. Best regards, Julian

Re: [OAUTH-WG] nits about definition of using form parameters

On 2012-06-18 23:48, Mike Jones wrote: Hi Julian, Both the Core and Bearer specs already reference W3C.REC-html401-19991224 for the definition of application/x-www-form-urlencoded. That definition is useless because it doesn't specify character encoding. I'll leave it up to others to commen

Re: [OAUTH-WG] nits about definition of using form parameters

Julian Reschke; OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) > Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] nits about definition of using form parameters > > Hi Julian, > > Both the Core and Bearer specs already reference W3C.REC-html401- > 19991224 for the definition of application/x-www-form-urlencoded. > > I

Re: [OAUTH-WG] nits about definition of using form parameters

ginal Message- From: oauth-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:13 AM To: OAuth WG (oauth@ietf.org) Subject: [OAUTH-WG] nits about definition of using form parameters Hi there, re <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-

[OAUTH-WG] nits about definition of using form parameters

Hi there, re : This needs a normative reference to a spec that defines the application/x-www-form-urlencoded media type (such as ). Looking at the media ty