- From: Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:45:35 -0000
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "JSON WG" <json@ietf.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
----- Original Message From: "Henry S. Thompson" > I agree that XML is a useful point of comparison, in particular > because it too does not allow a BOM as part of an XML document, but > rather treats it as an aspect of packaging/transport external to the > XML document, which seems to me to be the kind of approach to BOMs the > JSON WG might consider. If I remember rightly, XML demotes notes about encoding detection and BOMs to a rather lowly (informational?) appendix. Maybe that's something JSON should do in the interests of interoperability (AKA avoidance of confusion - which there seems to be a lot of). Pete Cordell Codalogic Ltd C++ tools for C++ programmers, http://codalogic.com Read & write XML in C++, http://www.xml2cpp.com
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 11:44:44 UTC