- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:25:47 +0200
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
* Brian Kardell wrote: >On Oct 18, 2013 10:43 AM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >> * Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >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. >Mistaken that it doesn't, or that others do? Your statement could use >clarity. There is only one factual claim above. Text formats that use Unicode signatures are the exception and not the rule. JSON as defined in RFC 4627 is an example format that does not use them; there is no need to use Unicode signatures for JSON as explained in RFC 4627. It might be desirable to use Unicode signatures in JSON and the authors of the XMLHttpRequest proposal are welcome to suggest this to the IETF JSON Working Group. The same goes for the other differences. -- 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 15:26:10 UTC