Re: [I18ndir] Review volunteer needed (Fwd: [dispatch] WGLC of draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-07)

[John Levine <[e-mail]>]

In article <477C5A18357719590D6336D9@PSB> you write:
>(3) Other than the statement "Source text is expected to be in
>Unicode Normalization Form C", there is apparently no
>requirement that the underlying CCS be Unicode.  The statement
>"Implementations are required to support the UTF-8 character
>encoding scheme" does not impose that requirement either, it
>just makes UTF-8 support mandatory to implement...

That's just more wrongness.  The ECMAscript spec says in the lexical
grammar that a source character can be "any Unicode code point" and
otherwise has a whole lot of discussion about how Unicode ie to be
interpreted.  Whether or not you think they've done a good job of it,
it's clear that the Unicode code point management happens at the
ECMAscript level, and this draft should not make guesses about
normalization.

Given how tightly ECMAscript is bound to Unicode, it would be
reasonable to say that the only interoperable charsets are UTF-8,
UTF-16BE, and UTF-16LE.  This is not strictly backward compatible, but
I would be pretty surprised if it broke anything that wasn't already
hopelessly broken.

Maybe I should tell Ned, the designated IANA charset expert, to take a
look and see what happens.

R's,
John