- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 12:12:51 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24581 --- Comment #6 from Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org> --- (In reply to Anne from comment #5) > 1. ScalarValueString is not in any way exposed. We can always change it. It > is specification language. I know. It's still a bug to fix rather than spread all over spec-land. > 2. "scalar value" in the context of strings In the context of *Unicode strings*. > means a code point that is not a > lone surrogate. It therefore very accurately describes the intent. Asserting accuracy does not demonstrate it. Spec authors don't all grok or use Unicode-relative jargon, nor should they have to. Plus, the name's too long. Oh, and it smells too :-P. > 3. An attractive name such as UnicodeString might lead to adoption in places > that do not require it. String/DOMString should be used normally. UnicodeString is less attractive, but if you are worried about an attractive nuisance, then your assertion #2 fails. Unicode experts know more than enough to use the right type. Who is the audience here, what's the threat model? /be -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 12:12:53 UTC