W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > June 2008

Re: XHR LC comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:10:50 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ub53wcwg64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:22:23 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:12:25 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann  
>> <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> * Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> Yes, the I18N problems of Basic Authentication need to be fixed, but  
>>>> XHR
>>>> is not the right place to do it.
>>> Agreed, I've repeatedly suggested to simply point out it is up to the
>>> scheme to define how the unicode sequences are encoded in the message.
>>  This is what XMLHttpRequest says. It just has UTF-8 as fallback in  
>> case the authentication scheme doesn't define anything. (Which per  
>> Julian shouldn't affect this case so I'm not sure what the issue is.)
> Well, you yourself claimed that the defaulting applies to Basic; and  
> that XHR implementations use UTF-8.
> So are you disagreeing that this is confusing, if you were confused  
> yourself just a few hours ago?
> Can you give an example of an authentication scheme to which the  
> defaulting *would* apply?

You're right. I removed the encoding sentence leaving it up to the  
relevant specifications.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 10:11:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:27 UTC