- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 14:22:37 +0200
- To: "Alexey Proskuryakov" <ap-carbon@rambler.ru>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Fri, 18 May 2007 10:10:23 +0200, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap-carbon@rambler.ru> wrote: > I'm not quite sure about having two separate variables for both > "charset" and "charset-http". If I'm not mistaken, the algorithm can be > streamlined by using only one of these: I combined them now based on your feedback. Thanks! > [...] > > 3. If there is no Content-Type header or there is a Content-Type header > which contains a MIME type that is text/xml, application/xml, text/xsl or > ends in +xml (ignoring any parameters) use the rules set forth in the XML > specification to determine the character encoding. Let charset be the > determined character encoding ***and terminate these steps***. The steps are about returning a value for the text response entity body so we can't terminate them at this point. > 4. If charset is "null" and the Content-Type MIME type contains a charset > parameter let charset be the value of that parameter. Shouldn't the charset parameter always overwrite everything? > [...] > > I think step 5 (BOM detection) could be written in a declarative manner > similar to how it is defined in CSS > <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#q23>. The current algorithm may > be slightly misguiding in that it misses some edge cases (what to do if > the > reply is shorter than 4 bytes?) that should only be interesting to > implementors anyway. I tried to improve this: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/Overview.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#text-response-entity-body -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Sunday, 20 May 2007 01:55:56 UTC