- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:35:43 +0200
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Cc: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:33 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > This is all very well, but we are not at present in the business of > banning previously permitted forms of JSON. Why not? Surely existing still deployed producers should be what matters when deciding what needs to be ingested--not previous specs. That is, compatibility should be considered in terms of what's out there--not in terms of what unreasonable things were written down in a previous RFC. > If you have evidence > that the specific use of these encodings harms JSON interchange, > bring it forward. UTF-32 harms JSON interchange, because Gecko removed all UTF-32 support throughout the engine (other engines probably did, too, but I'm too busy to check) and, therefore, XHR responseType = "json" doesn't support UTF-32. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@hsivonen.fi http://hsivonen.fi/
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2013 13:36:14 UTC