2023-06-01 [02:42:09.0862] > <@dminor:mozilla.org> My colleague Sean Burke is interested in attending the meeting tomorrow. He's not yet an official Mozilla delegate, I wanted to double check there's no problem with him attending. I believe it should be fine. Hasn't Sean attended previously as well? I feel like I remember them from a previous meeting but am not sure. [05:40:16.0854] They were an observer at the last TC39 meeting as well, I'm not sure about TG2. [05:40:27.0095] ah, I see [05:40:30.0019] that might be it [05:41:06.0152] I think there's no issue on the TG2 side, and Mozilla has signed an org-wide IP release with ECMA so I see no reason why there might be issues [05:41:32.0649] Great, thanks! [09:28:10.0761] dminor: technically any mozilla employee is automatically a delegate as long as the company POC doesn't object [09:28:22.0381] * dminor: technically any mozilla employee is automatically a delegate as long as the company POC doesn't object (they'd still need an onboarding issue but they can participate just like anyone else) [09:43:31.0296] ljharb: Thanks for the clarification :) [09:45:04.0976] Well, Ecma does maintain a list of members of TCs and TGs (the word “delegate” is our invention) but the bottom line is it’s fine to participate [09:46:02.0612] This is one of those not-100%-formal things which is sort of fine that way, as long as we eventually get good lists for reference 2023-06-13 [10:55:47.0192] I observed this in V8 and JSC but haven't investigated yet; does anyone know what's going on? ``` (new Intl.DateTimeFormat("en", { hour: "numeric", fractionalSecondDigits: 2 })).format(0); // => `7 PM ├F14: 00┤` ``` interestingly, SpiderMonkey seems to handle it better: "7 PM (Fractional Second: 00)" [10:57:23.0318] https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/issues/394 [11:00:55.0434] It's an ill-defined options bag, because you are asking for hours and fractional second digits, which are not adjacent. You should add minutes and seconds, or else you are subject to garbage in garbage out, at least until we fix the spec to handle these cases better (which is what issue 394 aims to do). [11:02:29.0901] I think `F14` means like "field 14" which is the root data for appendItems, and maybe SpiderMonkey carries "nicer" data for the appendItems, but ideally we never need to use appendItems because they're almost always in GIGO situations [11:03:49.0293] so the V8/JSC behavior is spec-conformant? [11:05:09.0073] I don't see why it wouldn't be 2023-06-21 [14:27:30.0112] http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr55/ [14:27:45.0229] Is anyone interested in looking into how this may apply to JavaScript? [14:28:11.0706] TG2 would be a great place to start with your Unicode expertise [14:29:05.0953] This is about mitigating potentially serious security risks in the context of projects open to external contributors