Re: [XHR] responseType "json"

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Long experience shows that people who say things like "I'm going to code
> against the Rec
> instead of the draft, because the Rec is more stable"
>

I know that's a common error, but I never said I was going against a Rec.
 My point was that the editor's draft is fluid enough that it can be
debated and changed, as it's clearly not perfect at any point in time.
 Debating a change to it doesn't put anyone in the wrong, and certainly
doesn't mean I'm "violating" it - because tomorrow, my proposed violation
could be the current state of the spec.


>
> RFC4627, for example, is six years old.  This was right about the
> beginning of the time when "UTF-8 everywhere, dammit" was really
> starting to gain hold as a reasonable solution to encoding hell.
> Crockford, as well, is not a browser dev, nor is he closely connected
> to browser devs in a capacity that would really inform him of why
> supporting multiple encodings on the web is so painful.  So, looking
> to that RFC for guidance on current best-practice is not a good idea.
>
> This issue has been debated and argued over for a long time, far
> predating the current XHR bit.  There's a reason why new file formats
> produced in connection with web stuff are utf8-only.  It's good for
> the web if we're consistent about this.


> ~TJ
>