W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > April 2012

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

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 23:22:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKcCxyB1FXUtbtr+si-CV4b12UOqNFK4PpJ9digS1jP+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
A case for JSON LD here?  Or perhaps JSON LD Macros will allow the best of
both worlds?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Blaine Cook <romeda@gmail.com>
Date: 22 April 2012 23:15
Subject: [apps-discuss] Webfinger / SWD Issue #2: JSON format
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org


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.

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
Received on Sunday, 22 April 2012 21:23:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:36 GMT