- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:40 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Appelquist Daniel (UK)" <Daniel.Appelquist@telefonica.com>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > 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. They don't allow a BOM? Beautiful. That seems like something that should be rectified in the format, not XMLHttpRequest. All text formats allow a BOM. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 13:36:12 UTC