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: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:46:20 +0100
To: "Brendan Eich" <brendan@mozilla.com>
Cc: "David Bruant" <bruant.d@gmail.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, mranney@voxer.com
Message-ID: <op.v9yynie064w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:15:48 +0100, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>  
wrote:
> I've heard this for years, can believe it in old-school big-company  
> settings, but have a not-to-be-shattered hope that with Node.js etc. it  
> is easier for content authors to configure headers. Go on, break my  
> heart!

I believe the problem is mostly content distribution networks and such.  
Presumably large managed websites have more complicated setups as well  
where it would be easier if changes can be made in templates rather than  
HTTP header setup. Jonas Sicking might know more.


>> 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.
>
> That's pretty but is it misleading? This is the big-red-switch-for-JS,  
> not for the whole doc. In particular what is the Content-Type, with what  
> charset parameter, and how does this attribute interact? Perhaps it's  
> just misnamed.

Yeah, maybe script-unicode would be better. Not sure. It's kind of shitty  
the amount of flags we are introducing. The authoring picture does not  
become any simpler :/

(As for this not working because it might be preceded by <script>. If it  
is, the flag would simply not work. This is similar to how <html manifest>  
works and my intention was that it would simply make use of the same  
mechanism.)


>> 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"
>
> I'm not a Unicode expert but I believe the latter is called "character".

Not everything is a character. It would simply be a code point, but since  
it might be larger (depending on details) than U+10FFFF I thought we might  
need a new term.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 08:46:57 UTC

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