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

Re: XHR LC comments

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:22:23 +0200
Message-ID: <483C353F.1000706@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

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?

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 16:23:04 UTC

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