- 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>
* 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