Internationalization summary 1/19 (TC39 meeting)

Nebojša Ćirić cira at
Mon Jan 23 14:19:05 PST 2012

He is unfortunately using term "internationalization" for "localization".
This library only lets you handle resource loading - i.e. translated

Our library deals with proper formatting and sorting (and possibly many
more in the future). The actual sorting (collation) is the hard part where
no native JavaScript implementation exists and with a good reason - data
size and algorithm complexity would be hard to overcome.

I don't feel we are rushing anything, it's been 1.5 yrs since we started,
but this is my first standard so I may be too optimistic :).

23. јануар 2012. 13.26, Brendan Eich <brendan at> је написао/ла:

> Just saw this tweeted:
>**Jed/ <>
> 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.
> /be
>  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
>>    <**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

Nebojša Ćirić
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list