On May 16, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > On May 16, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > >> On May 16, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> >>> That said, defining JS strings and DOMString differently seems like a >>> recipe for serious author confusion (e.g. actually using JS strings as the >>> DOMString binding in ES might be lossy, assigning from JS strings to >>> DOMString might be lossy, etc). It's a minefield. >> >> Plus, people stuff random data into JS strings, which so far have not UTF-16 >> validated or indexed, and they could read back arbitrary uint16s in a row. >> >> Breaking this seems web-breaking to me, from what I remember. It's >> impossible to detect statically (early error). > > I think I've addressed this in other responses, including in > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/014307.html > See the part about passing a string with >16-bit chars to a parameter that > requires a DOMString
I'm not sure this covers all the cases. Boris mentioned how JS takes strings from many sources, and it can concatenate them, in a data flow that crosses programs. Is it really safe to reason about this in a modular or "local" way? /be > The main thing to add, is that to put random >16-bit values into a string > requires using new APIs or syntax defined in the proposal and that currently > is not in ES or browsers. I don't see how that can be called "web-breaking" > > Allen >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
