Re: XHR LC comments

On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:22:23 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> 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
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>