TC39 Async Context on 2024-04-08

13:03	<littledan>	@room Hey, do we have the slides for the presentation tomorrow? It would be good to be able to review them and give feedback before the actual presentation happens
14:15	<Justin Ridgewell>	I haven’t written them yet
14:23	<littledan>	I haven’t written them yet thanks for letting us know; enjoy your eclipse day
16:47	<Justin Ridgewell>	https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ok6fX9PN3XEv9ZwffrDzJX24uuiNrkGDZN-KgGwGkc0/edit?usp=sharing
16:48	<Justin Ridgewell>	You all have edit access, feel free to update
16:48	<Justin Ridgewell>	I’m going to walk around before the eclipse
16:48	<Justin Ridgewell>	Feel free to add them to the plenary agenda whenever
17:16	<littledan>	wait did we end up with AsyncContext.wrap or AsyncContext.Snapshot.wrap?
17:16	<littledan>	for slide 7, should we link to the i2i?
17:17	<littledan>	Should we make it clear that the issue described on slide 3 is the main thing we need to get to stage 2.7, that we see zero other open issues?
17:17	<littledan>	also maybe mentioning our plan for sync iterator helpers?
17:25	<Andreu Botella>	wait did we end up with AsyncContext.wrap or AsyncContext.Snapshot.wrap? AsyncContext.Snapshot.wrap indeed
17:29	<Andreu Botella>	The integration spec will be opened before we ask for Stage 2.7 There might be a lot of work needed to update all the specs. I think we should definitely have a document describing when an API or event should use which context, and have at least the basic PRs for DOM, HTML and WebIDL if needed.
17:30	<Andreu Botella>	but not necessarily PRs for every single spec
17:30	<Andreu Botella>	although a list of which APIs and events should be updated would probably be in scope
17:33	<Andreu Botella>	or maybe all non-experimental specs?
17:33	<Andreu Botella>	not sure
17:41	<littledan>	Makes it much easier for users to pass callbacks to libraries Snapshot was introduced to make it easier for libraries to accept multiple callbacks I'm not sure if I agree with this... I think AsyncContext.Shapshot.wrap will be frequently used by libraries, just like AsyncResource.wrap is in Node-land
17:41	<littledan>	or maybe all non-experimental specs? definitely experimental specs are out of scope, yes
17:42	<Andreu Botella>	in the analysis of non-event web APIs that I'm currently doing, I'm considering everything implemented by at least one major browser, including things in WICG specs
17:42	<littledan>	The integration spec will be opened before we ask for Stage 2.7 There might be a lot of work needed to update all the specs. I think we should definitely have a document describing when an API or event should use which context, and have at least the basic PRs for DOM, HTML and WebIDL if needed. Yeah I agree, the goal should be to define things and have some rough consensus around it, not get all the editorial work perfectly lined up and almost landed
17:43	<littledan>	in the analysis of non-event web APIs that I'm currently doing, I'm considering everything implemented by at least one major browser, including things in WICG specs IMO it's enough to stick to things that are implemented by multiple browsers
21:26	<littledan>	BTW I added a "Next Steps" slide, would be great to have reviews to make sure I'm not misrepresenting things
21:29	<littledan>	Do we agree on "Plan: Propose for Stage 2.7 some time soon in 2024" ?