Re: String to ArrayBuffer

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Glenn Adams <> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell <> wrote:
>> > The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it
>> > provides correct behavior in all cases.
>> Do you mean this one?
>> I see the following problems after a cursory glance:
>>  4) It says "Browsers MAY support additional encodings." This is a
>> huge non-interoperability loophole. The spec should have a small and
>> fixed set of supported encodings that everyone MUST support and
>> supporting other encodings should be a "MUST NOT".
> In practice, it will be impractical if not impossible to enforce such a
> dictum "MUST NOT support other encodings". Implementers will support
> whatever they like when it comes to character encodings, both for
> interchange, runtime storage, and persistent storage.

Actually, such requirements often work relatively well.  Many
implementors recognize the pain caused by race-to-the-bottom support
for random encodings.


Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 17:19:00 UTC