- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:47:00 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
* Julian Reschke wrote: >On 2013-10-18 14:07, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >> ... >> I do not see how a request from the W3C TAG as the one above will >> improve anything for the JSON community. The TAG's resources would be >> better spent trying to unify the many subtly different JSON variants. A >> useful start would be working with W3C's Web Applications Working Group >> so their XMLHttpRequest specification does not define a JSON variant of >> its own, possibly through coordinating with the IETF JSON WG. That would >> be useful to the JSON community as it would avoid situations where some >> content works fine with XMLHttpRequest but not with other processors. >> ... > >Interesting. Are you referring to ><https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/xhr/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#json-response-entity-body>? >Possibly step 1? In part, yes. `data:application/json,%EF%BB%BF%5B%5D` is an example of a byte sequence that's accepted by the XMLHttpRequest proposal even though it's not a proper application/json entity as defined by RFC 4627. I have written about that and the other differences in detail on the JSON WG's mailing list; `site:ietf.org inurl:json "Hoehrmann" "XMLHttpRequest"` is likely to find the relevant messages. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 12:47:22 UTC