- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:11:06 +0100
- To: "Arun Ranganathan" <aranganathan@mozilla.com>, "Glenn Maynard" <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: "Eric U" <ericu@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:05:44 +0100, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Arun Ranganathan > <aranganathan@mozilla.com>wrote: > >> Simon, >> >> Is the relevant part of HTML sufficient to refer to? >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#utf-8 I was thinking of "If the data argument has any unpaired surrogates, then throw a SyntaxError exception.". http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/network.html#dom-websocket-send > > That defines decoding UTF-8 to Unicode strings. You need the reverse. > > Using a replacement scheme like UTF-8 decoding, instead of a hard > exception, seems more consistent with how encodings in general are > handled. Otherwise, you'll end up with bugs in code if, for example, > people paste in unpaired surrogates (Firefox allows this, last I > checked), Maybe unpaired surrogates should be converted to U+FFFD on paste. Are there other cases? > causing unexpected exceptions in code. Instead, just convert them to > U+FFFD, which gives much more graceful error handling for such a rare > case > that most people will never handle explicitly. If we can't U+FFFD unpaired surrogates on paste, I agree it makes sense to U+FFFD them in APIs. If the only way to get them is a JS escape, then an exception seems OK. > I think WebSocket should do the same, for the same reason. Have you filed a bug? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 06:11:43 UTC