Re: XHR LC comment: header encoding

On 1/4/10 3:15 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> But what's the alternative? Decide the encoding in each case? The
> encoding not being predictable seems to be worse than anything else...

Well, one non-destructive alternative is to encode JS strings as bytes 
by converting each 16-bit code unit into a byte pair (in LE or BE order, 
as desired).  This has the obvious drawback of stuffing null bytes into 
the header, as well as not round-tripping with the byte-inflation.

But that's the only non-destructive alternative (well, that and variants 
like base64-encoding to get around the null byte thing) I see, given 
that JS strings are actually arrays of arbitrary 16-bit integers.  In 
particular, conversion to UTF-8 is in fact destructive, as is any other 
conversion that treats the string as Unicode of some sort.

If we don't have a requirement to preserve any possible JS string via 
this API, then we probably have more flexibility..


Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 20:58:11 UTC