Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
1.0 PRD and Roadmap documents #665
1.0 PRD and Roadmap documents #665
Changes from 3 commits
ddffa85
7778735
9444df3
d828276
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The 262 test suite has lots of JS specific elements, like is returned value an Object/Array etc. I assume we are not interested in fulfilling those.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We are not, but I assume we want sticking ICU4X into a JS implementation (SpiderMonkey, Deno, V8 etc.) ergonomic so that they only have to care about Object/Array etc.
Do you think it should be stated explicitly here? If so, do you have a suggestion how to phrase it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you should commit it as is, and I'll edit (with your review) afterwards?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
related to 262 full compatibility requirement above.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, I'm confused. Are you concerned that a reader may interpret "full test262 compatibility" as "producing JS objects" rather than "performing i18n operations that are in scope of ecma402 and tested by test262"?
Do you have a suggestion on how we should communicate that intent?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please commit as is, I'll edit after.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
question (non-blocking): Doesn't collation also depend on normalization? If so, it would be worth mentioning, and that would also be another reason why collation isn't a quick/easy thing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@sffc ^ do you know? I have never worked on collation impl.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't feel authoritative answering this question since I have not worked extensively with collation.