W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > May 2007

Re: XMLHttpRequest: BOM detection for responseText

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 14:22:37 +0200
To: "Alexey Proskuryakov" <ap-carbon@rambler.ru>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tskpzzvs64w2qv@annevk.hotspot.sfr.fr>

On Fri, 18 May 2007 10:10:23 +0200, Alexey Proskuryakov  
<ap-carbon@rambler.ru> wrote:
> I'm not quite sure about having two separate variables for both  
> "charset" and "charset-http". If I'm not mistaken, the algorithm can be  
> streamlined by using only one of these:

I combined them now based on your feedback. Thanks!

> [...]
> 3. If there is no Content-Type header or there is a Content-Type header
> which contains a MIME type that is text/xml, application/xml, text/xsl or
> ends in +xml (ignoring any parameters) use the rules set forth in the XML
> specification to determine the character encoding. Let charset be the
> determined character encoding ***and terminate these steps***.

The steps are about returning a value for the text response entity body so  
we can't terminate them at this point.

> 4. If charset is "null" and the Content-Type MIME type contains a charset
> parameter let charset be the value of that parameter.

Shouldn't the charset parameter always overwrite everything?

> [...]
> I think step 5 (BOM detection) could be written in a declarative manner
> similar to how it is defined in CSS
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#q23>. The current algorithm may  
> be slightly misguiding in that it misses some edge cases (what to do if  
> the
> reply is shorter than 4 bytes?) that should only be interesting to
> implementors anyway.

I tried to improve this:  

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Sunday, 20 May 2007 01:55:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:23 UTC