alex at weej.com
Thu Sep 29 16:25:26 UTC 2016
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 <mikesamuel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Oriol Bugzilla
> >> ECMAScript, while highly used in web browsers, should really not care
> >> about HTML constructs. That's where WHATWG and W3C come in. I suggest
> >> type of feature should come from one of those groups, not ECMA.
> > That applies to escaping things like `</script>` or `]]>`, and I agree.
> > as Mike Samuel mentioned, JSON strings containing U+2028 or U+2029 are
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss