Certainly. If I explicitly override the charset, then that seems like reasonable behavior.<div><br></div><div>Having the default decoding vary between importScripts() and <script> seems bad, especially since you can't override charsets with importScripts().</div>
<div><br></div><div>-atw<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:annevk@opera.com">annevk@opera.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:39:48 +0200, Drew Wilson <<a href="mailto:atwilson@google.com" target="_blank">atwilson@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Are you saying that if I load a script via a <script> tag in a web page,<br>
then load it via importScripts() in a worker, that the result of loading<br>
that script in those two cases should/could be different because of<br>
different decoding mechanisms?<br>
If that's what's being proposed, that seems bad.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
That could happen already if the script loaded via <script> did not have an encoding set and got it from <script charset>.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Anne van Kesteren<br>
<a href="http://annevankesteren.nl/" target="_blank">http://annevankesteren.nl/</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>