On May 17, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Yes. And right now that's how it works and actual JS authors typically don't > have to worry about encoding issues. I don't agree with Allen's claim that > "in the long run JS in the browser is going to have to be able to deal with > arbitrary encodings". Having the _capability_ might be nice, but forcing all > web authors to think about it seems like a non-starter.
Allen said "be able to", not "forcing". Big difference. I think we three at least are in agreement here. > >> That it means JS hackers are careless about Unicode is inevitable, and there >> are other reasons for that condition anyway. At least with your strawman >> there will be full Unicode flowing through JS and back into the DOM and >> layout. > > See, this is the part I don't follow. What do you mean by "full Unicode" and > how do you envision it flowing? I mean UTF-16 flowing through, but as you say that happens now -- but (I reply) only if JS doesn't mess with things in a UCS-2 way (indexing 16-bits at a time, ignoring surrogates). And JS code does generally assume 16 bits are enough. With Allen's proposal we'll finally have some new APIs for JS developers to use. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
