- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:47:39 +0100
- To: Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- CC: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, www-tag@w3.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On 22/11/2013 12:33 , Pete Cordell wrote: > ----- Original Message From: "Henri Sivonen" >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> >> wrote: >>> XHR's responseType = "json" only supports UTF-8 (optionally with a >>> leading BOM), across the board. >> >> Good point. I wrote the code that enforces that constraint, but I forgot. >> >> Well, there's an interoperability reason against UTF-16, too, then. > > Personally I think we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of > assuming that the only use-case for JSON will be in "to browser" > communications. I'm hoping that for the IETFs purposes we'll be looking > at JSONs wider utility into broader areas, which may even include > logging to files and interprocess communication where there might be > sensible reasons to choose something other than UTF-8. Sure, but given the prominence of JSON communicated to the browser, it would be a pretty bad idea to have JSON variants that don't interoperate there. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 11:47:54 UTC