| 18:20 | <littledan> | bakkot: Do we have ES2023 nicely typeset, or should we get someone to help with this again, like Alan did for ES2022? |
| 18:20 | <littledan> | Michael Ficarra: shu ^ |
| 18:21 | <bakkot> | littledan: we do not and the editors do not think it is worth prioritizing that effort |
| 18:22 | <bakkot> | (there's some discussion in #tc39-editors:matrix.org ) |
| 18:22 | <littledan> | bakkot: I'm just trying to tell Ecma, hey, the editors aren't doing this; if we as a standards body want this done, then we should find a vendor to do so |
| 18:22 | <littledan> | for this to take place, it would have to be a request originating from TC39. I don't see any harm in doing that. |
| 18:23 | <littledan> | so I was going to start an email thread about this--the Ecma secretariat is under the impression that the editor group will handle this themselves. |
| 18:24 | <littledan> | also give that Michael had found a vendor before (which I'm trying to dig up), it'd be nice to send that reference (and ideally the others that Michael evaluated) to Ecma for their use |
| 18:24 | <bakkot> | indeed, the editors are not intending to produce anything nicer than the print-to-pdf option |
| 18:24 | <littledan> | I can handle arguing with Ecma--I'm not asking for a lot from you here |
| 18:27 | <bakkot> | I'm sure Michael can dig up the old email threads yes |
| 18:28 | <bakkot> | if you are asking for anything beyond that I am not clear on what it is? |
| 18:28 | <bakkot> | just an email to Ecma saying we're not planning on doing anything more than print-to-pdf? |
| 18:30 | <littledan> | Yeah, digging up the old email threads would be helpful. In the response email to the thread I'm starting, it'd be great if you said something which amounts to, "We only have bandwidth to produce the HTML version, which can be print-to-pdf'd; if Ecma wants to publish something nicer, we request that this be done by a vendor." [that last half is critical, that the request originate from TC39] |
| 18:30 | <littledan> | would this be OK from your perspective? |
| 18:30 | <bakkot> | yup definitely |
| 18:37 | <littledan> | Great, thanks. I started the thread; if you can confirm that I'm accurately representing the state of things, from the point of view of the editors, that'd be helpful. |
| 18:38 | <Chris de Almeida> | thanks for your help on this Dan |
| 19:04 | <shu> | also sgtm |
| 22:37 | <Michael Ficarra> |
|
| 22:38 | <Michael Ficarra> | that's the email I sent to the "interior formatting and layout" services, requesting a quote |
| 22:38 | <Michael Ficarra> | https://bookdesigners.com https://bookbaby.com/book-formatting https://damonza.com/other-services/formatting-and-layout https://polgarusstudio.com/format-your-book |
| 22:38 | <Michael Ficarra> | those were the 4 services I contacted |
| 22:38 | <Michael Ficarra> | I got quotes from 2 of them |
| 22:43 | <Michael Ficarra> | littledan: also please next time use my @f5.com email for TC39 stuff |
| 22:47 | <Michael Ficarra> | shu: per your comment on the async built-ins thing, I just wanted to remind you that Array.fromAsync depends on that, so we'll need to figure something out before its spec text can be finalised/approved |
| 22:47 | <Michael Ficarra> | it's not just async iterator helpers |
| 22:53 | <shu> | Michael Ficarra: yes, that's why i commented |
| 22:53 | <shu> | to remind myself to not forget |
| 22:54 | <littledan> | littledan: also please next time use my @f5.com email for TC39 stuff |
| 22:58 | <Michael Ficarra> | littledan: see DMs |