- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:41:39 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:26:48 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> Hmm.. I looked through archives but can't find any such decision. >> >> It's not how Gecko works, but I haven't tried webkit. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010OctDec/0812.html That email does not seem to mention how to determine encoding at all, so I still wouldn't say that that's something "we" decided on as much as what "you" decided :-) But yes, I do now see that the spec draft defines how to do it here: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/#text-response-entity-body which is great. I do however think that steps 4 and 5 should only be done when .responseType is "" or "document". Especially for HTML it seems like it would require hairy HTML parsing, including in workers. Also, it doesn't seem to work for things like "chunked-text" since it could require switching encoding part-way through, which means that "text" and "chunked-text" would be decoded differently, which I think would be very surprising. > Kind of weird that Gecko does not work this way since this is exactly what > the standard defines. Then again, you often seem to ask questions already > answered in the standard... Would you rather write specs without implementation feedback? I would imagine no. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 19:42:36 UTC