- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 21:56:07 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > >> > >> why step 3 only applies when you have at least three bytes and then > >> only compares two bytes, > > > >We could change this to be slightly tighter, but it's a bit pedantic. > > When I read the text I suspect there is an error in the specifi- cation, > and would then implement what I think my application ought to do; but > your goal is that people implement it exactly as written. The original reason for this was that I did not want to sniff as a particular type a file that only contained a BOM, since it is more likely that this is an error and that the file is really some other encoding. > >> why the UTF-32 BOM is not being detected, > > > >We measured and determined that it was not needed for compatibility. In > >general, we tried to minimize the amount of sniffing. > > As I read the draft, UTF-32LE encoded text/plain documents will be > sniffed as text/plain because they have a UTF-16LE BOM; UTF-32BE encoded > text/plain documents will be sniffed as application/octet- stream. This > is inconsistent and confusing (there is suddenly some doubt whether you > treat the document as UTF-16 or UTF-32, and while browsers might not > support UTF-32, other applications will). We're explicitly not supporting UTF-32. For more details see HTML5. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 5 June 2009 21:56:42 UTC