W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2013

Re: XHR vs JSON, was: Next Steps on JSON + Proposed TAG Resolution

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnb78gdrAK85foY36EojidJa+VZwfHg4kLqH5tMf1E_hpXMxw@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 13:36:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:59 UTC