[OpenID] OpenID v.next. Atom or XRD

[Chris Messina]

As we've discovered in Activity Streams, mapping namespaced ATOM to JSON is
not straight forward.

And, why mirrored? This is just a file that sits on the server. Do you
really need multiple representations?

And, why are we having this discussion? This is a frivolous conversation at
this point — since ATOM itself is just an XML data format. XRD is just
another XML data format designed for a different purpose.

Speaking from experience, we chose to use ATOM as the basis for Activity
Streams because people were already syndicating this data over ATOM — but
were doing so in a less-expressive way. No one is currently publishing
discovery data — least of all in a format like ATOM... in this case, there's
an opportunity to learn from prior attempts, simplify and clarify, and do it
right.

Heck, I'd be advocating for using HTML if it were up to me. But at this
point we're just talking about a conventional way to describe the metadata
about a resource. Why overcomplicate it with ATOM?

In any case, Santosh, if you want to make your point — take an existing XRD
document and convert it to ATOM to show us what you mean, and how it is
superior. Otherwise, this conversation will float all over the place without
any solid grounding. I'm not interested in bikeshedding.

Chris

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Pat Cappelaere <pat at cappelaere.com> wrote:

> +1
> Atom and JSON mirrored equivalent.
> Pat.
>
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
>
> > We have to seriously consider the atom format as resource descriptors
> > for openid v.next. Atom has several advantages
> > 1) Atom  is an extremely simple format. I have demonstrated that with
> > a simple host-meta example in an earlier post.
> > 2) Atom is a very succesful format. Supported by companies like google
> > from 2003 and twitter more recently.
> > 3) Atom is a format easily understood by developers because of its
> popularity.
> > 4) Atom is extensible. You can easily extend atom to solve problems
> > specific to your requirements, like delegation etc.
> > 4) Atom has already been used by other specication's for resource
> > describing purposes.
> >
> > If we have to consider XRD instead of atom, XRD needs to prove two
> things.
> > 1) what can XRD do that atom or an extension of atom cannot do?
> > 2) The argument given against atom by xrd is about the atom id el
> > ement. It is a very hollow argument, which i am certain will not hold.
> >
> > So we need to consider forming a working group for exploring the
> > possibilities of atom for openid.
> >
> > Any ideas or views on this?
> >
> > --
> > http://hi.im/santosh
> > _______________________________________________
> > general mailing list
> > general at lists.openid.net
> > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>



-- 
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20091116/b923be68/attachment.htm>