Mathias Bynens wrote: > Looking at implementations in the wild, Steven Levithan found > (https://github.com/mathiasbynens/es-unicode-regexp-proposal/issues/2#issuecomment-143288062) > that some regex flavors use `Is` for scripts, some for blocks, some > for scripts and blocks, some for neither. Since some script and block > names collide, this causes problems, especially when porting regexes > across flavors.
Are script names and block names expected to share a common namespace? If they don't, then there is no collision. LM3 says to ignore initial (and non-final) "is" for all property aliases and property value aliases, not just Script and Block values. There will be a lot of "collisions" if you take all of those into consideration. > The `is` prefix doesn’t provide any functionality that would otherwise > be unavailable. It doesn’t add any value, yet causes incompatibility, > author confusion, and it increases implementation complexity. I don't see any evidence that it adds no value. Support for existing implementations is value. -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
