W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [XHR] responseType "json"

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:05:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+decmk6wy2d5yqpLBW_CKFxgr8bjCetrnwNjPeu3r5dcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
What do you mean by "treat content that clearly is UTF-32 as
UTF-16-encoded"? Do you mean interpreting it as a sequence of unsigned
shorts? That would be a direct violation of the semantics of UTF-32, would
it not?

I'm not advocating the use of UTF-32 for interchange, but it does have the
advantage of being fixed length encoding covering the entirety of Unicode.

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Henri Sivonen wrote:
> >Browsers don't support UTF-32. It has no use cases as an interchange
> >encoding beyond writing evil test cases. Defining it as a valid
> >encoding is reprehensible.
>
> If UTF-32 is bad, then it should be detected as such and be rejected.
> The current idea, from what I can tell, is to ignore UTF-32 exists,
> and treat content that clearly is UTF-32 as UTF-16-encoded, which is
> much worse, as some components are likely to actually detect UTF-32,
> they would disagree with other components, and that tends to cause
> strange bugs and security issues. Thankfully, that is not a problem
> in this particular case.
>
>
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 15:06:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:49 GMT