Subject: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #2: JSON format

From: Blaine Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:15:15 +0100

As a follow on to Issue #1, we also need to know the specific format to be
used to describe the discovery metadata.

I think [in the unlikely event we choose XML-only] the XML format is easy:
XRD is a good format, one that had lots of attention and is truly about as
simple as we'll ever see (i.e., it's effectively a subset of HTML <head>
tags).

However, in the more likely event that we choose XML+JSON or JSON-only,
we'll need to decide on a format.

Webfinger uses JRD, while SWD uses a JSON response with a single key,
"locations", that points to an array of locations where the service is
available. Given that (it seems) we want to be able to provide multiple
services per request versus SWD's single service per request, JRD is a
likely candidate.

Are there other response formats we should be considering? Is there already
implicit consensus on using JRD?

b.

---

From: Melvin Carvalho <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:26:56 +0200

On 22 April 2012 23:15, Blaine Cook <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Are there other response formats we should be considering? Is there
> already implicit consensus on using JRD?
>

I think the two incumbent formats are :

Plain old JSON: Content-Type: application/json ( SWD )
JRD: Content-Type: application/xrd+json ( WF )

Two other serializations that could be worth mentioning are :

Facebook Open Graph API
JSON LD ( http://json-ld.org/ )

I would expect to see both of these two see significant growth in the next
few years.

> b.
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>