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 16:42:55 +0200
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "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: <p5i2691q9l3shuh8m9tdods6l5dbsifacn@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>They don't allow a BOM? Beautiful. That seems like something that
>should be rectified in the format, not XMLHttpRequest. All text
>formats allow a BOM.

You are mistaken.
-- 
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 14:43:18 UTC

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