On May 16, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > On May 16, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> That said, defining JS strings and DOMString differently seems like a recipe >> for serious author confusion (e.g. actually using JS strings as the >> DOMString binding in ES might be lossy, assigning from JS strings to >> DOMString might be lossy, etc). It's a minefield. > > Plus, people stuff random data into JS strings, which so far have not UTF-16 > validated or indexed, and they could read back arbitrary uint16s in a row. > > Breaking this seems web-breaking to me, from what I remember. It's impossible > to detect statically (early error).
I think I've addressed this in other responses, including in https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/014307.html See the part about passing a string with >16-bit chars to a parameter that requires a DOMString The main thing to add, is that to put random >16-bit values into a string requires using new APIs or syntax defined in the proposal and that currently is not in ES or browsers. I don't see how that can be called "web-breaking" Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
