Re: [dispatch] [media-types] 3rd WGLC - draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs - deadline 10th May

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

It appears that Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]> said:
>> Note that this language is not new to this draft; it's inherited
>> from RFC4329 which this document supersedes.
>
>It is indeed somewhat difficult to understand for people who are not 
>familiar with the BOM, and autodetection proceedures.
>
>I'd suggest changing:
>
>If this step determines the character
>encoding scheme, the octet sequence representing the Unicode
>encoding form signature MUST be ignored when decoding the binary
>source text.
>
>to something such as:
>
>If this step determines the character
>encoding scheme, the octet sequence representing the Unicode
>encoding form signature is not part of the actually decoded binary
>source text.

While I agree with your concern, and have given up trying to figure
out how the Javascript world got so broken that it cannot keep its
encodings straight without having to sniff the contents of every
message, I don't think we should change the language. It's been there
for a long time, everyone wno needs to understand it knows what it
means, and if we change it, we'll be in for a round of "why did they
change it and what do I have to do different."

R's,
John