On Feb 20, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Wes Garland wrote: > On 20 February 2012 16:00, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > > ... > Observation -- disallowing otherwise "legal" Unicode strings because they contain code points d800-dfff has very concrete implementation benefits: it's possible to use UTF-16 to represent the String's backing store. Without this concession, I fear it may not be possible to implement BRS-on without using a UTF-8 or full code point backing store (or some non-standard invention). (or using multiple representations) > Yes, I understand. If it is a requirement (or even a goal) to enable implementation to use UTF-16 as the backing store, we should be clearer about it being so. > Maybe the answer is to consider (shudder) adding String-like utility functions to the TypedArrays? FWIW, CommonJS tried to go down this path and it turned out to be a lot of work for very little benefit (if any). > > But with the BRS flipped it would have to censor C "strings" passed to JS to ensure that unmatched surrogate pairs are present. > > Only if the C strings are wide-character strings. 8-bit char strings are fine, they map right onto Latin-1 in native Unicode as well as the UTF-16 and UCS-2 encodings. Yes, I was assuming WCHAR strings Allen
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 02:00:04 UTC