TC39 ECMA402 on 2023-04-04

16:10	<ryzokuken>	okay, done
16:10	<ryzokuken>	ECMA-262 is ready for opt-out, what do we aim to do
18:26	<sffc>	Thanks for the feedback ryzokuken ; I'm responding to it today
19:05	<Richard Gibson>	@sffc there are also some unresolved comments from my first pass: https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/pull/753#discussion_r1123431803 https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/pull/753#discussion_r1123438659 https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/pull/753#discussion_r1123444050 https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/pull/753#discussion_r1123447388
19:07	<sffc>	Yep; I plan to resolve them at the same time
19:07	<sffc>	Do you still plan to give numberformat.html another pass?
20:23	<Richard Gibson>	yes, just about done now
20:33	<Richard Gibson>	done
20:48	<justingrant>	Richard Gibson and I opened an editorial PR (https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3035) for ECMA-262 to refactor how time zone identifiers are handled. Feedback welcome! The goals of this PR are: Clarify/simplify existing 262 text dealing with time zone identifiers (non-402 implementations can use IANA TZDB, so identifier-related text was already in 262). Rationalize overlapping spec text between 262, 402, and Temporal. Doing this will simplify 402 now and also make it less disruptive to 262 and 402 spec text when Temporal is merged later. Avoid the need for 402 to override 262 AOs relating to time zone identifiers. Centralize implementation-defined logic in a smaller number of AOs. Add optional recommendations to avoid TZDB footguns. In the future, these recommendations may be changed and/or strengthened as part of proposal-canonical-tz. Make it easier to make changes to identifer-related logic in the future, like what Richard and I are working towards in proposal-canonical-tz. (Although changes in this PR are IMO helpful even if that proposal doesn't move fwd.) I'd particularly like feedback on a naming thing: Richard is concerned that the terms "canonicalization" and "canonical identifier" are too strong given that canonicalization can change over time in IANA TZDB and because other uses of "canonical" mostly refer to canonicalizing of upper/lower case. So in the PR we're using "resolving" and "primary identifier" instead. If you have an opinion about this term change, then we'd like to hear it.