Re: [Json] Encoding detection (Was: Re: JSON: remove gap between Ecma-404 and IETF draft)

[Henri Sivonen <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:33 AM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:
> This is all very well, but we are not at present in the business of
> banning previously permitted forms of JSON.

Why not? Surely existing still deployed producers should be what
matters when deciding what needs to be ingested--not previous specs.
That is, compatibility should be considered in terms of what's out
there--not in terms of what unreasonable things were written down in a
previous RFC.

> If you have evidence
> that the specific use of these encodings harms JSON interchange,
> bring it forward.

UTF-32 harms JSON interchange, because Gecko removed all UTF-32
support throughout the engine (other engines probably did, too, but
I'm too busy to check) and, therefore, XHR responseType = "json"
doesn't support UTF-32.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
[e-mail]
http://hsivonen.fi/