[whatwg] Please always use utf-8 for Web Workers
atwilson at google.com
Fri Sep 25 09:39:48 PDT 2009
Are you saying that if I load a script via a <script> tag in a web page,
then load it via importScripts() in a worker, that the result of loading
that script in those two cases should/could be different because of
different decoding mechanisms?
If that's what's being proposed, that seems bad.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp at opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:31:41 +0200, Jonathan Cook <
> jonathan.j5.cook at gmail.com> wrote:
> The importScripts portion of the Web Workers API is compatible with
>> existing scripts,
> Only if those scripts don't use any of the banned interfaces and
> constructors, right?
> but I'm all for more UTF-8 :) If the restriction is added to the spec,
>> I'd want to know that a very clear error was going to be thrown explaining
>> the problem.
> I'm not sure that throwing an error is a good idea. Would you throw an
> error when there's no declared encoding? That seems to be annoying for the
> common case of just using ASCII characters. Throwing an error when there is
> a declared encoding that is not utf-8 might work, but are there many scripts
> that have a declared encoding and are not utf-8?
> I think it is to just ignore any declared encoding and assume utf-8. If
> people are using non-ascii in another encoding, then they would notice by
> seeing that their text looks like garbage. Browsers could also log messages
> to their error consoles about encoding declarations declaring non-utf-8
> and/or sequences of bytes that are not valid utf-8.
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg