5 June 2014 TC39 Meeting Notes
C. Scott Ananian
ecmascript at cscott.net
Fri Jun 13 09:27:52 PDT 2014
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Domenic Denicola
<domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> - Does not require escaping < > & ' " in any contexts.
`<` will need to be escaped if it would otherwise start `</module`, of
course. But I'm pretty sure you mean, "does no character reference
> - Terminates when seeing `</module` + extra chars. (Possibly we could do this only when it would otherwise be a parsing error, to avoid `"</mod" + "ule>"` grossness? But that would require some intertwingling of the HTML and ES parsers, which I can imagine implementers disliking.)
Anything other than strict `</module` is not going to fly. An
argument in favor of keeping `</script>` is that bundling tools and
minifiers already know about avoiding `</script` -- using another tag
name now means that a conservative tool needs to avoid another magic
> But it removes the following things `<script>` has:
> - `<!--` escaped data mode and double-escaped mode
> - \r, \r\n, \0 special-casing
Not going to happen, IMO. The HTML spec does linefeed conversion
before any part of the tokenizer even sees the characters. And \0 is
banned in HTML for good reasons.
> - The two new single-line comment forms (maybe; I know these work in Node though, so maybe just leave them in as part of the ES6 spec).
I've no strong opinion on this.
More information about the es-discuss