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

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

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:25:47 +0200
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e3j269lpg8es2gk2lalpv7sfrq6u69oiq8@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Brian Kardell wrote:
>On Oct 18, 2013 10:43 AM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>> * Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> >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.

>Mistaken that it doesn't, or that others do?  Your statement could use

There is only one factual claim above. Text formats that use Unicode
signatures are the exception and not the rule. JSON as defined in RFC
4627 is an example format that does not use them; there is no need to
use Unicode signatures for JSON as explained in RFC 4627. It might be
desirable to use Unicode signatures in JSON and the authors of the
XMLHttpRequest proposal are welcome to suggest this to the IETF JSON
Working Group. The same goes for the other differences.
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 15:26:10 UTC

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