Internationalization summary 1/19 (TC39 meeting)

Brendan Eich brendan at
Mon Jan 23 13:26:24 PST 2012

Just saw this tweeted:

Wondered if anyone has any reactions. We have a Globalization API 
rushing to standardization while libraries to do some of what it does 
exist on It seems to me we ought to look at the latter while 
finalizing the former -- if not actually interact with developers using 
the latter more.


> Nebojša Ćirić <mailto:cira at>
> January 20, 2012 2:38 PM
> 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
>     <>).
>   * 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

More information about the es-discuss mailing list