Full Unicode strings strawman

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Mon May 16 19:18:10 PDT 2011


On May 16, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:

> On May 16, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> 
>> On May 16, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> 
>>> That said, defining JS strings and DOMString differently seems like a recipe for serious author confusion (e.g. actually using JS strings as the DOMString binding in ES might be lossy, assigning from JS strings to DOMString might be lossy, etc).  It's a minefield.
>> 
>> Plus, people stuff random data into JS strings, which so far have not UTF-16 validated or indexed, and they could read back arbitrary uint16s in a row.
>> 
>> Breaking this seems web-breaking to me, from what I remember. It's impossible to detect statically (early error).
> 
> I think I've addressed this in other responses, including in https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/014307.html 
> See the part about passing a string with >16-bit chars to a parameter that requires a DOMString

I'm not sure this covers all the cases. Boris mentioned how JS takes strings from many sources, and it can concatenate them, in a data flow that crosses programs. Is it really safe to reason about this in a modular or "local" way?

/be


> The main thing to add, is that to put random >16-bit values into a string requires using new APIs or syntax defined in the proposal and that currently is not in ES or browsers.  I don't see how that can be called "web-breaking" 
> 
> Allen
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110516/11782817/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list