- From: Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:59:15 -0700
Ah, sorry for the confusion - my use of "default" was indeed sloppy. I'm saying that if the server is explicitly specifying the charset either via a header or via BOMs, it seems bad to ignore it since there's no other way to override the charset. I understand your point, though - since workers don't inherit the document encoding from their parent, they may indeed decode a given resource differently if the server isn't specifying a charset in some way. -atw On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:34:18 +0200, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> > wrote: > >> Again, apologies if I'm misunderstanding the suggestion. >> > > I thought that by "default encoding" you meant the encoding that would be > used if other means of getting the encoding failed. If there is only one > encoding it is not exactly the "default", since it cannot be changed. > > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090928/af54b010/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 09:59:15 UTC