- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:38:38 -0700
Leaving legacy encodings behind would be a good thing if we can get away with it... jmho. On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com> wrote: > 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/20090928/8de83bc4/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 11:38:38 UTC