Internationalization summary 1/19 (TC39 meeting)

Nebojša Ćirić cira at google.com
Fri Jan 20 14:38:29 PST 2012


Thanks to Waldemar the meeting notes related to intl work were already
posted to the list. I would like to expand them, and restart discussion on
couple of remaining issues.

Testing

   - We got ECMA number allocated to us (402) so we can use it for testing
   infrastructure and any future needs.
   - Talked to David Fugate about where to put the tests and how to run
   them without affecting ES5 tests.
   - Interested parties should ask for access to the test262 repository
   (follow these
instructions<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=test262:submission_process>
   ).
   - We need bugzilla entry for intl work for testing (we already have one
   for the draft)
   - Mr. Istvan pointed out that we may need to produce TR (one page) that
   points to the tests. It's not gating on our progress.

Requirements for March meeting

   - Draft ready and reviewed by TC39 members
   - Two distinct implementations and testing in place

Microsoft and Google representatives stated that they could have
implementations ready by given deadline (barring large changes to the
current spec).
We are working on updating the draft and introductory document and should
have them ready for the review soon.
We started work on testing, but will need time to tell how quickly we can
progress there.

General

  Going back to module vs. global object discussion. General agreement was
that we should pick a global name and work with that, then use modules when
they are ready, but that we should wait for Brendan to pitch in before
making a final decision. Most of the group was for shorter name i.e. "intl"
if it doesn't introduce conflicts.
  The reason for this discussion was the current state of the module spec,
i.e. it's not clear yet where load/loaded will reside (not everybody agrees
on Object.system). In order to produce an implementation by March and have
draft accepted we do need to decide rather soon on this.

 Range vs. TypeError discussion. We eliminated ValueError proposal from our
spec and decided to use RangeError. A "fierce" discussion followed and I
think the final decision was to keep using RangeError.

-- 
Nebojša Ćirić
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120120/66979f8a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list