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

Re: New full Unicode for ES6 idea

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:58:28 -0800
Message-ID: <4F41B6D4.4040500@mozilla.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, mranney@voxer.com, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Brendan Eich:
> > To hope to make this sideshow beneficial to all the cc: list, what do
> > DOM specs use to talk about uint16 units vs. code points?
>
> I say "code unit" as a shorter way of saying "16 bit unsigned integer 
> code unit"
>
>   http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-code-unit
>
> (which DOM4 also links to) and then just "code point" to refer to 21 
> bit numbers that might correspond to a Unicode character, which you 
> can see used in
>
>   http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-obtain-unicode

Well then, you are one up on ECMA-262, and from Mark Davis's message 
using canonical Unicode terms. We shall strive to align terms.

Here's another q for the DOM folks and others using WebIDL: is extending 
the DOM and other specs to respect the BRS and support full Unicode 
conceivable from where you sit? Desirable? Thanks.

/be
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 02:58:58 UTC

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