| 06:35 | <Domenic> | Would this be the first time WTF-16 is referenced as a public API name in a programming language? https://github.com/WebAssembly/stringref/blob/main/proposals/stringref/Overview.md |
| 06:36 | <Domenic> | string.new_wtf8 etc. |
| 07:36 | <annevk> | Domenic: oh my. Is this on top of the previous "let's use UTF-8" or this some new iteration of that? |
| 07:47 | annevk | files https://github.com/WebAssembly/stringref/issues/54 |
| 08:05 | <Domenic> | It seems like it's... separate? The previous thing was about the component model, which I think is about boundaries? Whereas this is about adding WTF-8/16 strings to WebAssembly itself? |
| 08:10 | <annevk> | I looked through the issues and they're even considering WTF-8 literals (which goes against Simon's spec)... I hope this is not a thing that has wide buy-in. |
| 08:15 | <Domenic> | Well, I think now is the time to give feedback through your local wasm committee member... I decided this was pretty low-level and mostly language-ey and not web platform-ey so I didn't have very strong opinions. |
| 08:16 | <Domenic> | That is, it seems icky to introduce WTF-* strings into a new programming language in this day and age, but wasm isn't really a new programming language anyway, it's a compile target for old ones, so... |
| 08:20 | <annevk> | Domenic: yeah I filed an issue and pinged someone internally. I personally see Wasm as more than just a compile target. At least I'd like them to be more ambitious than that. |
| 08:21 | <annevk> | I also don't understand the zero-copy requirement. Given the myriad of JS string types JS engines have, that seems improbable. |
| 08:22 | <Domenic> | I think there's only generally two types, strings and ropes. Presumably ropes need to be flattened, but basic strings wouldn't. |
| 08:22 | <Domenic> | Hmm, although there's also the 8-bit latin1 vs. 16-bit distinction |
| 08:23 | <annevk> | Right, I think in Gecko it ended up at 16 variants total at one point, but maybe that changed |
| 08:24 | <annevk> | I would expect Andy Wingo to know that though, so not sure what's up |
| 09:09 | <hsivonen> | annevk: What's the use case for an external spec being able to set beStrict to true here https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#idna ? What external spec sets it to true? |
| 09:26 | <annevk> | hsivonen: it's not meant for an external spec, it's meant for https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#valid-domain |
| 09:26 | <annevk> | hsivonen: no external spec can call those algorithms, they have to go through the host parser |
| 09:28 | <hsivonen> | hsivonen: no external spec can call those algorithms, they have to go through the host parser |
| 09:29 | <hsivonen> | Positional arguments vs. keyword arguments in specs... |
| 09:29 | <annevk> | hsivonen: I could probably remove the default, I'm not even sure why I gave it one |
| 09:30 | <hsivonen> | Anyway, it looks like I need to support setting UseSTD3ASCIIRules both ways, but I don't need to support transitional processing. |
| 09:33 | <annevk> | hsivonen: I'll make that change and I'll also add beStrict to domain to Unicode for the same reason (URL has 2 callers for Unicode ToUnicode at the moment) |
| 09:34 | <hsivonen> | hsivonen: I'll make that change and I'll also add beStrict to domain to Unicode for the same reason (URL has 2 callers for Unicode ToUnicode at the moment) |
| 09:35 | <annevk> | Domenic: could you review https://github.com/whatwg/url/pull/717 and https://github.com/whatwg/url/pull/719? |
| 09:35 | <Domenic> | Will do, although maybe not until next week. |
| 09:36 | <annevk> | hsivonen: hopefully it being part of Interop 2022 (and likely 2023) will make IDNA handling a bit more understood and worked upon, but it's been rather frustrating trying to make progress on it |
| 09:37 | <hsivonen> | I note that the URL Standard at least hard-codes three of the flags: CheckHyphens set to false, CheckBidi set to true, CheckJoiners set to true. Now I'm curious about the history of those being flags in UTS 46. |
| 09:37 | <annevk> | hsivonen: including with people deciding out-of-band that non-transitional is suddenly okay without much coordination across browsers and such, very weird |
| 09:38 | <annevk> | hsivonen: right yeah this doesn't make sense as an end state to me, UTS 46 can and should probably simplify |
| 09:39 | <annevk> | (and then Chromium advertising this as an IDNA2008 thing which UTS 46 does rather specific things with is also concerning, but hopefully it'll all work out) |
| 09:40 | <hsivonen> | (Context: https://github.com/unicode-org/icu4x/issues/2850 ) |
| 09:49 | <annevk> | hsivonen: you want to review https://github.com/whatwg/url/pull/720? |
| 09:53 | <annevk> | Thanks! |
| 10:19 | <Ms2ger 💉💉💉> | * files https://github.com/WebAssembly/stringref/issues/54 |