ECMAScript 6 fixed that, largely along the lines of my proposal: http://norbertlindenberg.com/2012/05/ecmascript-supplementary-characters/index.html
Norbert > On Aug 24, 2017, at 22:14 , Peter Constable via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> > wrote: > > I thought Javascript had a UCS-2 understanding of Unicode strings. Has it > managed to progress beyond that? > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of David Starner > via Unicode > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 5:18 PM > To: Unicode Mailing List <unicode@unicode.org> > Subject: Fwd: Unicode education in Schools > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: David Starner <prosfil...@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 6:16 PM > Subject: Re: Unicode education in Schools > To: Richard Wordingham <richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 5:26 PM Richard Wordingham via Unicode > <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > Just steer them away from UTF-16! (And vigorously prohibit the very > concept of UCS-2). > > Richard. > > > > Steer them away from reinventing the wheel. If they use Java, use Java > strings. If they're using GTK, use strings compatible with GTK. If they're > writing JavaScript, use JavaScript strings. There's basically no system > without Unicode strings or that they would be better off rewriting the wheel. >
