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

On Oct 18, 2013 10:43 AM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> * Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >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.
>
> You are mistaken.
> --
> 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/
>
Mistaken that it doesn't, or that others do?  Your statement could use
clarity.