W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Reviving E4X (H4E)?

From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:44:18 -0700
Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, Adam Klein <adamk@google.com>, Erik Aarvidson <arv@google.com>, ☻Mike Samuel <msamuel@google.com>
Message-Id: <EA675454-DEAF-4715-8D26-2C4552B20758@mozilla.org>
To: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> [+msamuel]
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:31 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote:
> I have a larger concern here, which is that we're implicitly forcing
> literals to be XML, while the rest of the document is HTML. The closer
> we can get to HTML for something like this, the better (IMO).
> To emphasize Alex's point here, quasi-literals provides a mechanism for avoiding injection attacks in any language for which you have a quasi-parser -- whether XML, HTML, SQL, RegExp, or whatever -- all for the price of one bit of additional syntactic sugar and no new semantics. Both vastly lighter than E4X and vastly more useful.
> E4X is dead. Long live quasi-literals!

I love quasis and don't mind their hunchback-like name, but others say it is a scary unknown neologism. Can we have a better term?

For the unprefixed `... ${...} ...` form we could say "string interpolation". That's a mouthful but it is a known phrase.

Sorry to bikeshed the name! If that's the biggest problem (and it may be), well done to you and Mike.

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 17:44:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:04 UTC