问题
In ECMA-262, 3rd edition[PDF], under section 7.6 ("Identifiers," page 26), we see the following note:
The dollar sign is intended for use only in mechanically generated code.
That seems reasonable. Many languages commonly used for generating or embedding JavaScript hold a special meaning for $, and using it in JavaScript identifiers within those languages leads to unexpected behavior.
The "mechanically generated clause" appeared in edition 2. In edition 1, it was not present. As of edition 5, it disappears again without explanation, and it remains absent from the working draft of the 6th edition.
If I had to guess, I'd assume it was originally omitted because the potential pitfalls hadn't been considered, and was then added in the next edition when it became clear that it was causing problems. I can't think of a good reason for removing it again in edition 5, though.
Is there any explanation for the inclusion and subsequent removal of the "mechanically generated clause" from the specification (a "paper trail" from mailing lists, newsgroups, or elsewhere)? I can't find this documented anywhere.
As a side question, can anyone explain the rationale behind including zero-width characters in the edition 6 draft? This seems like it will cause even more trouble, given that you can't see those characters at all, and I can't think of any reason you'd want those characters in an identifier.
Update: The initial inclusion of the "mechanically generated code" note and the inclusion of zero-width characters are explained in codewaggle's answer below. The only thing remaining to be answered is the primary focus of this question, the removal of the "mechanically generated code" note.
回答1:
Here's a start: Subject: SC22 N2745 - Disposition of Comments Report on DIS 16262 -ECMAScript
It appears that "should only be used for mechanically-generated code" was added because that was the spec for JAVA.
D6) 7.5: DOLLAR SIGN should not be in the identifier list, according to recommendations in TR 10176. 7.5 should refer to the "i18n" specification of ISO/IEC 14652 for definitions of letters and digits.
>>>>>>Action: Partial acceptance --- ECMAScript follows Java precedent. A comment will add that $ should only be used for mechanically-generated code. <<<<<
If you want to slog through the minutes of past meetings, you can look here:
ecmascript wiki: Notes and Minutes from past meetings
About later changes:
All of this is from the mailing list "es5-discuss -- Discussion of ECMAScript 3.x".
ZWNJ and ZWJ in identifiers (was: Comments on April ES5 final draft standard tc39-2009-025)
John Cowan wrote:
It turns out that Unicode 5.1 has done the heavy lifting: the bad news is that the lifting is indeed heavy. You want to allow Cf characters if and only if they actually make a semantic distinction in contemporary use. That turns out, says Unicode 5.1, to allow only U+200C and U+200D and then only in certain contexts: the rules involve knowing the Script and Joining_Type properties of nearby identifier characters. Details at http://unicode.org/reports/tr31/#Layout_and_Format_Control_Characters .
David-Sarah Hopwood replied:
What is the down-side of simply adding U+200C and U+200D to IdentifierPart without any additional context-sensitive rules?
I think that it is the combined responsibility of input methods and of programmers to ensure that
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>characters are used as intended in identifiers; all that a programming language syntax needs to do is to allow them.Note that the goal of "excluding as many cases as possible where no visible distinction results" (supposedly for security reasons) is not really applicable, since ECMAScript does not enforce even NFC normalization. To not enforce NFC but to add considerable complexity to the grammar, as UTR #31 suggests, in order to prevent some potential (but relatively harmless, AFAICS) misuses of
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>, seems like an inconsistent set of design choices to me.
This one pulls a bunch of discussion together: Last call for consensus on format-control char. issues
There are 15 replies to this, you'll probably want to read through those:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-June/thread.html#2832
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Waldemar's notes from the May F2F don't record any decision on the issue of
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>in identifiers. However, my personal notes say that I need to "keep in identifiers and fix grammar" which is also my recollection of what we decided at the meeting.The simplest implementation of that decisions is to simply add
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>as alternatives for IdentifierPart. In addition, the text in section 7.1 that says that format control characters can occur in identifier presumably needs to be narrowed to say only<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>.At about the same time as the F2F David-Sarah made a more comprehensive proposal (duplicated below) that in addition to addressing
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>also significantly refines the rules for<BOM>including excluding them from strings literals and regular expressions and making it a syntax error for a<BOM>to appear within an identifier.I'm not a Unicode expert, but my sense is that David-Sarah's proposal is sound and probably consistent with the original goals of cleaning up class Cf in the specification. However, his rules for
<BOM>also seem like they could significantly complicate the lexical analysis phase of implementations.My sense from the F2F is that the consensus was more in the direction of my simple solution above (
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>in identifiers,<BOM>is whitespace) rather than David-Sarah's more comprehensive treatment of<BOM>.I need to have a final decision on this so I can update the draft accordingly. Based upon my recollection of the F2F I'm going to go with the "simple solution" unless there is apparent consensus otherwise.
Final thoughts?
The message he replied to, broken into chunks based on the message quoting:
-----Original Message----- From: es5-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org [mailto:es5-discuss- bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of David-Sarah Hopwood Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:44 PM To: es5-discuss at mozilla.org Subject: Grammar for IdentifierName does not allow
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>John Cowan wrote:
David-Sarah Hopwood scripsit:
The omission of format-control characters from
<IdentifierName>appears to be just an oversight.-1
Break
Indeed, I had forgotten that we had already discussed this and come to a different conclusion:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-April/002432.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-April/002435.html.
Break
Allowing all of them causes the same kinds of problems as allowing BOM. Most of them have little visible effect on the surrounding text (especially Latin-script text) even in fully conformant Unicode renderers, never mind renderers that muffle them. The result is that "foobar" and "foo
<Cf>bar" look the same but aren't.Per Unicode 5.1, the only ones that actually affect the natural- language meaning of identifiers are U+200C ZWNJ and U+200D ZWJ. These are the only ones which should even be considered in ES5 identifiers. UAX #31 (which is included by reference in Unicode 5.1) specifies narrower conditions in which ZWNJ and ZWJ are essential; sticking to the conditions is non-trivial, but minimizes the chance of spoofing.
Given the risks, I'm uncertain whether ZWNJ and ZWJ should be allowed or not.
Break
Forget trying to minimize identifier spoofing as a security risk. That's not possible, if Unicode identifiers are to be allowed at all. It is an inherent characteristic of Unicode that many distinct (even when normalized) strings will look the same. It is not at all clear that this is a genuine security risk for general programming -- as opposed to situations that require adversarial code review, which full ECMAScript is a long way from being able to support.
What is useful to attempt to minimize is the chance of accidentally typing identifiers that are distinct but look the same, or of seeing an identifier and being unable to reliably reproduce it. This is a usability issue, not a security issue.
For usability, it may indeed be a good approach to allow
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>but disallow other format-control characters. I am not sufficiently familiar with the scripts that require these characters to be sure of that, but it seems reasonable based on their descriptions in the Unicode standard.However, the complicated script-dependent rules described in UAX #31 for restricting the contexts in which
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>can occur, seem quite over-the-top given the impossibility of preventing spoofing. Again, see https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es5-discuss/2009-April/002435.html.Combining the proposal from that post with the changes for
<NEL>,<ZWSP>and<BOM>(since both affect section 7.1), we end up with this.==== Changes to section 7.2: - revert the addition of
<NEL>,<ZWSP>, and<BOM>to WhiteSpace and to the table.Changes to section 7.8.4:
DoubleStringCharacter :: SourceCharacter but not double-quote " or backslash \ or LineTerminator or
<BOM>\ EscapeSequence LineContinuationSingleStringCharacter :: SourceCharacter but not single-quote ' or backslash \ or LineTerminator or
<BOM>\ EscapeSequence LineContinuationNonEscapeCharacter :: SourceCharacter but not EscapeCharacter or LineTerminator or
<BOM>
The CV of DoubleStringCharacter :: SourceCharacter but not double-quote " or backslash \ or LineTerminator or
<BOM>is the SourceCharacter character itselfThe CV of SingleStringCharacter :: SourceCharacter but not single-quote ' or backslash \ or LineTerminator or
<BOM>is the SourceCharacter character itself.The CV of NonEscapeCharacter :: SourceCharacter but not EscapeCharacter or LineTerminator or
<BOM>is the SourceCharacter character itself.Replace section 7.1:
7.1 Unicode Format-Control Characters
The Unicode format-control characters (i.e., the characters in General Category "Cf" in the Unicode Character Database such as LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK or RIGHT-TO-LEFT MARK) are control codes used to control the formatting of a range of text in the absence of higher-level protocols for this, such as mark-up languages.
<BOM>is a format-control character used primarily at the start of a text to mark it as Unicode and to allow detection of the text's encoding and byte order.<BOM>characters intended for this purpose can sometimes also appear after the start of a text, for example as a result of concatenating files.In ECMAScript source,
<BOM>characters are ignored if they appear immediately before or after a token, or within a span of consecutive WhiteSpace characters (7.2). The lexical grammar does not explicitly include such ignored<BOM>characters. It is a syntax error for a<BOM>character to appear within a token (that is, if removing the<BOM>would result in the preceding and following characters being part of the same token).Note that comments are not tokens, and so the above rule allows
<BOM>characters to appear within comments. It does not allow them to appear within string literals or regular expression literals (the escape sequence \uFEFF should be used instead).It is useful to allow other format-control characters in source text to facilitate editing and display. Format-control characters other than
<BOM>may be used within comments, string literals, and regular expression literals. Two specific format-control characters,<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>, may also be used in an identifier after the first character.Code Unit Value Name Formal name
\u200C Zero width non-joiner <ZWNJ> \u200D Zero width joiner <ZWJ> \uFEFF Byte order mark (also called zero-width non-breaking space) <BOM>Changes to section 7.6:
[...] This standard specifies specific character additions: The dollar sign ($) and the underscore (_) are permitted anywhere in an identifier.
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>are permitted after the first character.Changes to section 7.8.5:
RegularExpressionNonTerminator :: SourceCharacter but not LineTerminator or
<BOM>Changes to Annex A: - update all productions changed above.
Changes to Annex E: - add to the entry for section 7.1: characters are ignored between tokens and in comments, but are not allowed within tokens (including string and regular expression literals).
<ZWNJ>and<ZWJ>are significant within identifiers rather than being stripped.
delete the entries for sections 7.2 and 15.10.2.12.
(Reverting the additions of
<NEL>,<ZWSP>, and<BOM>to the WhiteSpace production also reverts this for the \s character class, without any explicit change to section 15.10.2.12.)-- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
es5-discuss mailing list es5-discuss at mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es5-discuss
I'm not going to try to pull all this together and give you a succinct answer, maybe someone else will and you can can accept that as the answer, look at this as a starting point.
One last link:
The August 2009 archive has the initial draft and release candidate 1 discussions for ES5.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16454175/why-is-the-dollar-sign-no-longer-intended-for-use-only-in-mechanically-generate