W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:57:15 +0100
To: "Brendan Eich" <brendan@mozilla.com>, "David Bruant" <bruant.d@gmail.com>
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, mranney@voxer.com
Message-ID: <op.v9x4lpph64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:29:48 +0100, David Bruant <bruant.d@gmail.com>  
wrote:
> I think a CSP-like solution should be explored.

FWIW, the feedback on CORS (CSP-like) thus far has been that it's quite  
hard to set up custom headers. So for something as commonly used as  
JavaScript I'm not sure we'd want to require that. And although more  
difficult, if we want <meta> it can be made to work, it's just more  
complicated than simply defining a name and a value. But maybe it should  
be something simpler, e.g.

   <html unicode>

in the top-level browsing context's document.


What are libraries supposed to do by the way, check the length of "😁" and  
adjust code accordingly? As far as the DOM and Web IDL are concerned, I  
think we would need two definitions for "code unit". One that means 16-bit  
code unit and one that means "Unicode code unit", or some such. Looking at  
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#characterdata the  
rest should follow quite naturally.


What happens with surrogate code points in these new strings? I think we  
do not want to change that each unit is an integer of some kind and can be  
set to any value. And if that is the case, will it hold values greater  
than U+10FFFF?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2012 21:57:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:05 UTC