On 5/17/11 1:27 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
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.
I think we're in agreement on the sentiment, but perhaps not on where on
the "able to" to "forcing" spectrum this strawman falls.
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.
That doesn't answer my questions....
-Boris
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
