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

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:03:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDOpRHKKjxaXWPYQiWUajN=au3Lms_BGH_p1MxP48he5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> I don't see it being a particularly bad thing if vendors expose more
> translation encodings. I've only come across one project that would use
> them. Binary and utf8 handle everything else I've come across, and I can use
> them to build character maps for the rest, if I ever hit another strange
> project that needs them.

As always, the problem is that if one browser supports an encoding
that no one else does, then content will be written that depends on
that encoding, and thus is locked into that browser.  Other browsers
will then feel competitive pressure to support the encoding, so that
the content works on them as well.  Repeat this for the union of
encodings that every browser supports.

It's not necessarily true that this will happen for every single
encoding.  History shows us that it will probably happen with at least
*several* encodings, if nothing is done to prevent it.  But there's no
reason to risk it, when we can legislate against it and even test for
common things that browsers *might* support.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 18:12:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT