On 5 May 2014, at 10:48, Claude Pache <[email protected]> wrote:
> In my view, if `atob` and `btoa` were to enter in ES, it should be in > Appendix B (the deprecated legacy features of web browsers), where it would > be in good company with the other utility that does an implicit confusion > between binary and ISO-8859-1-encoded strings, namely `escape/unescape`. How do `atob` and `btoa` do any sort of implicit conversion between binary and any other encoding? Their behavior is well-defined, and they’re explicitly limited to extended ASCII. I don’t think this is Annex B material regardless — this is not a legacy feature. > We should be able to define a better designed function (and with a less silly > name, while we're at it). That would kind of defeat the purpose IMHO. We’re stuck with `atob`/`btoa` anyway in browsers — adding yet another name for the same thing does not really help. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
