Full Unicode strings strawman
bzbarsky at MIT.EDU
Tue May 17 10:37:45 PDT 2011
On 5/17/11 1:27 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On May 17, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> Yes. And right now that's how it works and actual JS authors typically don't have to worry about encoding issues. I don't agree with Allen's claim that "in the long run JS in the browser is going to have to be able to deal with arbitrary encodings". Having the _capability_ might be nice, but forcing all web authors to think about it seems like a non-starter.
> Allen said "be able to", not "forcing". Big difference. I think we three at least are in agreement here.
I think we're in agreement on the sentiment, but perhaps not on where on
the "able to" to "forcing" spectrum this strawman falls.
>> See, this is the part I don't follow. What do you mean by "full Unicode" and how do you envision it flowing?
> I mean UTF-16 flowing through, but as you say that happens now -- but (I reply) only if JS doesn't mess with things in a UCS-2 way (indexing 16-bits at a time, ignoring surrogates). And JS code does generally assume 16 bits are enough.
> With Allen's proposal we'll finally have some new APIs for JS developers to use.
That doesn't answer my questions....
More information about the es-discuss