[whatwg] Re: Web Forms 2: Altenative to <select editable>

[Mike Shaver]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:27:43 +0100, Jim Ley <jim.ley at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not actually confident it is non-conformant (ECMAScript has lots
> of get outs allowing all sorts of extensions.)  but it's on the
> interpretation of \b - Mozilla is more generous than the standard on
> what concerns a character, it's better IMO, and I wouldn't bother
> filing a bug as I'm sure it'll resolve as wont fix.

I don't think the behaviour you describe is non-conformant, but I'll
review the standard to be sure.  There are many cases in which both IE
and Mozilla treat input which would generate an error in a
no-extension ECMA-262 implementation as valid, but this doesn't sound
quite like the same case (example: treating 08 as a valid literal for
the number 8, rather than an invalid octal literal; people get those
values out of date strings all the time, and it's been permitted for
aeons on the web).  If you would file a bug about this case --
presuming none already exists -- the Mozilla JS team would appreciate
it.  There are ways for a page author to ask for stricter ECMA
interpretations, in some cases, and this might be a suitable change
for that mode.  It's also _quite_ possible, sadly, that this is just a
bug in the RegExp implementation in Mozilla.

Mike