W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: String to ArrayBuffer

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:10:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBEYWwNki8=iHcu6MUF-DnczDidRGNjN=t8u93Y19HgZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:
>> > The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it
>> > provides correct behavior in all cases.
>> Do you mean this one? http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/StringEncoding
>> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:30 UTC