2022-11-13 [15:03:28.0834] Is there a DurationFormat polyfill? 2022-11-14 [17:32:41.0456] I don't think so. There are too many open questions about it to start one yet [20:46:47.0146] The proposal is implementable in a polyfill ever since it reached Stage 3. There haven't been architectural changes; just details around the edges [20:47:57.0926] It should actually be an easy polyfill to write, since it can be largely composed on top of ListFormat and NumberFormat 2022-11-15 [15:16:17.0550] yusukesuzuki eemeli Frank found the following issue when integrating ICU 72 which may cause web compat concerns https://bugs.chromium.org/p/v8/issues/detail?id=13494 2022-11-16 [17:33:02.0699] I have some colleagues at Bloomberg who were looking for a polyfill project in TC39; should I direct them to DurationFormat? [17:41:33.0690] Yeah! Most ECMA-402 polyfills have been landing in format.js, although they could go anywhere. I think format.js has a lot of the infrastructure for polyfills already set up. Might be good to start by checking if they already have an issue open for this. [20:34:43.0554] Nice catch! [20:34:56.0954] It reminds me of https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/commit/1dc01f753d89a85ee19df8e8bd75f4aece80c594 :) [01:07:11.0186] Polyfills tracking issue - https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/issues/700 j [02:29:28.0826] Thank you for the heads-up. Firefox is fixing that the same way as Frank proposes: https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D160188 [10:47:55.0408] https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/pull/6556 JSC change will be integrated too. [11:24:55.0025] should the fixes be broadened from special treatment of only U+202F to [Space_Separator](https://util.unicode.org/UnicodeJsps/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=[:General_Category=Space_Separator:]) or all [horizontal white space](https://util.unicode.org/UnicodeJsps/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=[:blank=Yes:]) (which differ only by the latter including U+0009 tab per [UTS #18](https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr18/#blank))? 2022-11-17 [23:00:43.0276] It looks like the Chromium fix does just that. [04:11:25.0419] I've prepared some slides regarding the Intl MessageResouce stage-1 proposal that I'll be presenting to TG1 in a little under two weeks (i.e. splitting a part of the current Intl.MessageFormat stage-1 proposal into its own). I mention this here because they weren't ready yet when I presented the proposal to TG2. Comments/feedback would be most welcome. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1OUlaN_kx3t6puqWoWHSwPSrUNRFrhTo-QqAedceonCo/edit?usp=sharing 2022-11-24 [10:14:02.0382] If you've wondered about the utility of formatToParts granularity to the level of the decimal separator and unit, this sign in Madrid has it all: 2022-11-29 [01:13:30.0157] https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/pull/729 [01:13:36.0607] does this have TG2 consensus? [01:44:31.0201] No; we discussed the issue and agreed to move forward with a PR, but the actual PR has not received TG2 consensus [05:49:46.0830] does anyone understand why Frank objected to https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/pull/729 ? It corrects a spec bug to align with external and implementation reality, does so by changing two characters (`-0` to `1`), and has been up to look at for two weeks. [05:50:44.0369] Frank and Dan objected to TG1 consensus before TG2 consensus [05:52:34.0456] I got that from Dan, but the notes have "Nobody have chance to look at the PR" from Frank, which is just incorrect. And the implementation that he contributes to already conforms with the proposed spec text. [05:53:06.0639] I took it that he meant that "we didn't look at it because it was not discussed in the monthly meeting" [05:53:23.0542] he also mentioned that the slides were not uploaded sooner [05:53:32.0349] but then, these are just PRs on the repo [05:53:55.0388] sure [05:54:14.0575] so anyone should be able to review them ahead of time [05:54:37.0852] anyway, we were low on time so I decided it was best to discuss this offline and come back next meeting [05:56:05.0033] I'm ok with that, I just found the objection surprising and was wondering whether there might have been more context in person [08:10:46.0638] The topic was also presented as if you didn’t have much of a conclusion yet at all; it sounds like that was a misunderstanding of mine