Maybe we should just make U+2028 and U+2029 valid in JS then? What other productions in JSON are invalid syntax in JS?
On Thursday, 29 September 2016, Mike Samuel <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Oriol Bugzilla > <[email protected] <javascript:;>> 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] <javascript:;> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
