On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > > Long experience shows that people who say things like "I'm going to code > against the Rec > instead of the draft, because the Rec is more stable" >
I know that's a common error, but I never said I was going against a Rec. My point was that the editor's draft is fluid enough that it can be debated and changed, as it's clearly not perfect at any point in time. Debating a change to it doesn't put anyone in the wrong, and certainly doesn't mean I'm "violating" it - because tomorrow, my proposed violation could be the current state of the spec. > > RFC4627, for example, is six years old. This was right about the > beginning of the time when "UTF-8 everywhere, dammit" was really > starting to gain hold as a reasonable solution to encoding hell. > Crockford, as well, is not a browser dev, nor is he closely connected > to browser devs in a capacity that would really inform him of why > supporting multiple encodings on the web is so painful. So, looking > to that RFC for guidance on current best-practice is not a good idea. > > This issue has been debated and argued over for a long time, far > predating the current XHR bit. There's a reason why new file formats > produced in connection with web stuff are utf8-only. It's good for > the web if we're consistent about this. > ~TJ >
