W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:49:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJQvAueg4vviwhuNp7G1bJAd7qjmFPJywvH44k_YG=+pCGhEug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
> The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it
> provides correct behavior in all cases.

Do you mean this one? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/StringEncoding

I see the following problems after a cursory glance:
 1) It doesn't support streaming encoding/decoding.
 2) BINARY and ISO-8859-1 are defined as functionally equivalent. It
would be better to keep BINARY and get rid of real ISO-8859-1, because
normally the Web platform doesn't support real ISO-8859-1 and
ISO-8859-1 is an alias for Windows-1252.
 3) UTF-16 is supported, which is bad, because it's a terrible idea to
use UTF-16 for interchange.
 4) It says "Browsers MAY support additional encodings." This is a
huge non-interoperability loophole. The spec should have a small and
fixed set of supported encodings that everyone MUST support and
supporting other encodings should be a "MUST NOT".

What's the motivation for supporting encodings other than UTF-8 and BINARY?

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 14:33:58 GMT

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