Field separators, again
paul at ciphergoth.org
Wed Jun 8 01:49:36 PDT 2005
Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:
> I don't get that part. How is this content-type issue related to the
> what-are-we-signing issue? Please don't merge them as one issue. Don't
> lock us into one serialization format.
OK. I didn't want to have more serialization formats floating about
than were strictly necessary, just because it makes the standard longer.
I think the format I suggest is better for the what-are-we-signing
issue anyway; if we can make it do double duty so much the better.
> I think that's easy for any server to do, provided the XML fans in the
> audience can tell us what schema they'd like.
That "provided" is actually my biggest reservation with XML. A plea to
those discussing the issue: please represent it as simple key/value
pairs of strings, so there's a direct map between this format and the
> Then we leave it to consumers to decide which they want to parse.
OK. This isn't my field of expertise so I'll bow to your better
judgement. The only question I'd raise is whether it needs to go into
this revision of the protocol. Even though this in fact makes life
easier for consumer implementors, anything that makes the standard
longer might put them off.
> In the end, I don't care much about this issue, but I don't want to fight
> over it for long.... which is why I favor the consumer-decides approach.
These goals aren't necessarily aligned - agreeing more than one format
for the consumer to choose between may actually take longer than
agreeing one format. On the other hand, it makes a holy war between
format A and format B impossible. And as Evan says, for some consumers
XML will be a completely natural and easy format to parse - in fact,
this was my original position in my private email to you, in which I
argued that they'll have to parse XML anyway to retrieve the link tags.
\/ o\ Paul Crowley, paul at ciphergoth.org
More information about the yadis