On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > One problem with putting a limit is that it basically forces > implementations to use a specific encoding, or pay a hefty price. For > example if we choose a 64K limit, is that of UTF8 data or of UTF16 > data? If it is of UTF8 data, and the implementation uses something > else to store the date, you risk having to convert the data just to > measure the size. Possibly this would be different if we measured size > using UTF16 as javascript more or less enforces that the source string > is UTF16 which means that you can measure utf16 size on the cheap, > even if the stored data uses a different format. > Is that a safe assumption to design around? The API might later be bound to other languages fortunate enough not to be stuck in UTF-16. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 08:32:39 UTC