On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Oriol Bugzilla <[email protected]> wrote: >> ECMAScript, while highly used in web browsers, should really not care >> about HTML constructs. That's where WHATWG and W3C come in. I suggest this >> type of feature should come from one of those groups, not ECMA. > > That applies to escaping things like `</script>` or `]]>`, and I agree. But > as Mike Samuel mentioned, JSON strings containing U+2028 or U+2029 are not > valid JS expressions. I think it would make sense for `JSON.stringify` to > escape these.
What is it that you're saying is not in TC-39's bailiwick? Is it that w3c/whatwg should define what constitutes "embeddable JSON"? Or is it that if it's worth defining a function that produces embeddable JSON from an EcmaScript object, that w3c/whatwg should include that in some set of EcmaScript APIs that it defines? If you agree with my earlier claim """ We're talking about JSON serializers. Every serializers produces a subset of the output language. Choices about that sublanguage affect how easy/hard it is to use that serializer with other tools. """ then it seems that TC-39 might take embeddability into account when crafting the subset of JSON that JSON.stringify produces. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
