- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:28:43 +0200
- To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
- Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "t.p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > Just to be clear about this. My tests directly tested JavaScript built-in > JSON parsers WRT to BOM support in three major browsers. The tests directly > invoked the built-in JSON.parse functions and directly passed to them a > source strings that was explicitly constructed to contain a BOM code point . > This was done to ensure that the all transport layers (and any transcodings > they might perform) were bypassed and that we were actually testing the real > built-in JSON parse functions. It would be surprising if JSON.parse() accepted a BOM, since it doesn't take bytes as input. However, XHR's responseType = "json" exercises browsers in a way where the input is bytes from the network. From the perspective of JSON support in XHR, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Nov/0149.html (which didn't reach the es-discuss part of this thread previously) applies. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@hsivonen.fi http://hsivonen.fi/
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 13:29:11 UTC