[whatwg] Please always use utf-8 for Web Workers

Drew Wilson atwilson at google.com
Fri Sep 25 10:34:18 PDT 2009

Then I'm misunderstanding the suggestion then. My reading of:
"Therefore, we should be able to always use utf-8 for workers. Always using
utf-8 is simpler to implement and test and encourages people to switch to
utf-8 elsewhere."

...was "we should ignore charset headers coming from the server and always
treat script data imported via importScripts() as if it were encoded as
utf-8" (i.e. skip step 3 of section 4.3 of the web workers spec), which
seems like it's effectively changing the default decoding.

Which means that someone naively serving up an existing Big5-encoded script
(containing, say, string resources) with the appropriate charset header will
find it fails when loaded into workers.

Again, apologies if I'm misunderstanding the suggestion.


On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com>wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:16:47 +0200, Drew Wilson <atwilson at google.com>
> wrote:
>> Certainly. If I explicitly override the charset, then that seems like
>> reasonable behavior.
> It does not need to be overridden per se. If the document character
> encoding is different from UTF-8 then a script loaded through <script> will
> be decoded differently from a script loaded through importScripts() as well.
>  Having the default decoding vary between importScripts() and <script>
>> seems bad, especially since you can't override charsets with
>> importScripts().
> This is already the case. The suggestion was not about changing the
> default.
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090925/d2c0a816/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list