W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2013

Re: XHR vs JSON, was: Next Steps on JSON + Proposed TAG Resolution

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:47:00 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <iga2699spj7lbap9oisu2iovcts2a4el0v@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Julian Reschke wrote:
>On 2013-10-18 14:07, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> ...
>> I do not see how a request from the W3C TAG as the one above will
>> improve anything for the JSON community. The TAG's resources would be
>> better spent trying to unify the many subtly different JSON variants. A
>> useful start would be working with W3C's Web Applications Working Group
>> so their XMLHttpRequest specification does not define a JSON variant of
>> its own, possibly through coordinating with the IETF JSON WG. That would
>> be useful to the JSON community as it would avoid situations where some
>> content works fine with XMLHttpRequest but not with other processors.
>> ...
>Interesting. Are you referring to 
>Possibly step 1?

In part, yes. `data:application/json,%EF%BB%BF%5B%5D` is an example of a
byte sequence that's accepted by the XMLHttpRequest proposal even though
it's not a proper application/json entity as defined by RFC 4627. I have
written about that and the other differences in detail on the JSON WG's
mailing list; `site:ietf.org inurl:json "Hoehrmann" "XMLHttpRequest"` is
likely to find the relevant messages.
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 12:47:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:22 UTC