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

Re: IDL: special DOMString that converts to Unicode

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:24:11 +0200
To: "Brendan Eich" <brendan@mozilla.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: "Allen Wirfs-Brock" <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wm3o2ln2idj3kv@dhcp26-236.enst.fr>
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:29:34 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>  
wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>  
> wrote:
>> No, you want to add a type. Expect discussion (call the whaambulance  
>> over
>> "stop energy"). WebIDL is a shared good and people have to care about  
>> *not*
>> adding to it, or it'll grow like crazy. (This happens with JS too, and  
>> HTML
>> -- but you know all about that!)
>
> :-) Okay, I'm happy with an attribute. I did just notice this also
> affects every string we want to display in the UI,

Why? I think the current behavior is that lone surrogates can end up in  
places that get exposed to the user already, e.g. by setting textContent,  
and the browser/OS needs to deal with it for display anyway, so it's  
pointless to try to avoid it in some places.

> e.g. those in the
> Notifications API.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 15:24:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:07 UTC