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

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

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 07:55:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CADC=+jfTAKtLKizzhKwE4TbkGQ-YSdcaxYNWafXqov=FfB2i0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Oct 18, 2013 10:43 AM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> * 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/
>
Mistaken that it doesn't, or that others do?  Your statement could use
clarity.
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 14:55:36 UTC

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