Last call for consensus on format-control char. issues

Allen Wirfs-Brock Allen.Wirfs-Brock at microsoft.com
Wed Jun 17 13:11:51 PDT 2009


David-Sarah, in his proposal also removed <ZWSP> from Whitespace where it occurs in the current draft.  It is still there in my "simple" proposal. Does anybody else going to argue that <ZWSP> should or should not be treated as whitespace?

Allen

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:37 PM
>To: Allen Wirfs-Brock
>Cc: David-Sarah Hopwood; es5-discuss at mozilla.org
>Subject: Re: Last call for consensus on format-control char. issues
>
>Allen Wirfs-Brock scripsit:
>
>> My sense from the F2F is that the consensus was more in the direction
>> of my simple solution above (<ZWNJ> and <ZWJ> in identifiers, <BOM>
>> is whitespace) rather than David-Sarah's more comprehensive treatment
>> of <BOM>.
>
>The two solutions are consistent on the subject of ZWJ and ZWNJ.  I am
>concerned about treating BOM as whitespace, primarily because it's not,
>well, rendered with white space.  Treating BOM as whitespace means that
>"foo<BOM>bar" is the same as "foo bar" and distinct from "foobar",
>although it looks exactly like "foobar", and similarly with
>"foo<BOM>123".
>
>David-Sarah proposes treating BOM in an identifier, string literal,
>or other token as an error, since the intent is unclear (non-initial
>BOMs shouldn't appear in properly formatted text any more, now that the
>"zero-width separator" semantics has been taken over by U+2060 WORD
>JOINER), and ignoring all other instances of BOM.  That seems like TRT
>to me.
>
>--
>If I read "upcoming" in [the newspaper]              John Cowan
>once more, I will be downcoming
>http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>and somebody will be outgoing.                       cowan at ccil.org



More information about the es5-discuss mailing list