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

Re: [XHR] responseType "json"

From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 11:32:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CABirCh_FnzopuTJ8nP8tZF_Mv3bpZDkVyRwk41XSC+ewU2OgyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> In the example you give, there is consistency between the content metadata
> (charset param) and the content itself (as determined by sniffing). So why
> would both the metadata and content be ignored?


Because in the real world, UTF-32 isn't a transfer encoding.  Browsers
shouldn't have to waste time supporting it, and if someone accidentally
creates content in that encoding somehow, it should be immediately clear
that something is wrong.

It would take a major disconnect from reality to insist that browsers
support UTF-32.

> In any case, what is suggested below would be a direct violation of [2]
as well.
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#C030

No, it wouldn't.  That doesn't say that UTF-32 must be recognized.

-- 
Glenn Maynard
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 16:33:36 GMT

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