| 00:04 | <littledan> | Hey, any comments on the TG4 scope before I send it off to Ecma? https://gist.github.com/littledan/5f3736a50a40c610d6e864f33a75dcad |
| 01:36 | <Chris de Almeida> | MLS had indicated that we should review this at the next plenary and IS echoed the same. I didn't get the sense that it needed to be gated on plenary, but mentioning here in case I misunderstood. Nonetheless, I don't see why it couldn't be updated later, whether at plenary or beyond. |
| 01:37 | <littledan> | Yeah, I will put it on the Reflector too |
| 01:37 | <Chris de Almeida> | I can't add comments to the gist -- how would you like to receive feedback ? |
| 01:37 | <littledan> | You can’t? |
| 01:37 | <Chris de Almeida> | thanks for writing this up, btw! |
| 01:37 | <littledan> | Anyway feedback here is good |
| 01:37 | <Chris de Almeida> | oh sorry -- I can add comments -- I was hoping for line number comments |
| 01:38 | <Chris de Almeida> | didn't notice comment box at bottom |
| 11:10 | <eemeli> | littledan: Would the plan be for the source-map spec to ultimately follow the same procedures as we have for ECMA-262 and ECMA-402, or for more authority to be delegated to its TG to control the spec? Or is it too early for such considerations? |
| 11:23 | <littledan> | I’d like to discuss that among the group. I don’t know yet. I think source maps are a little more loosely connected to 262 than 402 and that could affect the process. |