On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Robin Berjon <ro...@berjon.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2011, at 14:00 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I tied it to UTF-8 to further the fight on encoding proliferation and 
>> encourage developers to always use that encoding.
>
> That's a good fight, but I think this is the wrong battlefield. IIRC (valid) 
> JSON can only be in UTF-8,16,32 (with BE/LE variants) and all of those are 
> detectable rather easily. The only thing this limitation is likely to bring 
> is pain when dealing with resources outside one's control.

Browsers don't support UTF-32. It has no use cases as an interchange
encoding beyond writing evil test cases. Defining it as a valid
encoding is reprehensible.

Does anyone actually transfer JSON as UTF-16?

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivo...@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Reply via email to