- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 09:03:02 +0200
- To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:41:39 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:26:48 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> >> wrote: >>> Hmm.. I looked through archives but can't find any such decision. >>> >>> It's not how Gecko works, but I haven't tried webkit. >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0812.html > > That email does not seem to mention how to determine encoding at all, > so I still wouldn't say that that's something "we" decided on as much > as what "you" decided :-) It mentions the conclusion from the discussion when we added response/responseType that "text" and default would be equivalent for responseText and "document" and default would be equivalent for responseXML. That obviously includes determining encoding, which was decided prior to that (e.g. when XMLHttpRequest Level 1 excited Last Call and became Candidate Recommendation). > But yes, I do now see that the spec draft defines how to do it here: > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/#text-response-entity-body > which is great. > > I do however think that steps 4 and 5 should only be done when > .responseType is "" or "document". Especially for HTML it seems like > it would require hairy HTML parsing, including in workers. If we change how determining encoding works between default, "text", and "document", we should really start throwing for responseText and responseXML when responseType is not the default to indicate that is different. > Also, it doesn't seem to work for things like "chunked-text" since it > could require switching encoding part-way through, which means that > "text" and "chunked-text" would be decoded differently, which I think > would be very surprising. Yeah, maybe. >> Kind of weird that Gecko does not work this way since this is exactly >> what the standard defines. Then again, you often seem to ask questions >> already answered in the standard... > > Would you rather write specs without implementation feedback? I would > imagine no. Implementation feedback is feedback you give while implementing. Given that this feature is already in Gecko and you only now appear to have read the document... I guess it does not matter much, but I have the feeling that if Henri had not said anything I would have had to uncover Gecko not implementing the standard by myself. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2011 07:03:46 UTC