2026-07-02 [07:54:26.0391] reminder: editor call in 5 minutes [08:11:49.0257] ljharb I was wondering, would it be possible to create a GitHub action that merges PRs "the right way"? So that for those that do not have conflicts, the "ready to merge" label could work automatically without you having to do it manually [08:35:23.0694] https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1799 [09:05:36.0203] I added `editor call` to https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3893 just before the meeting, nothing to discuss other than asking for thoughts and/or reviews [09:37:32.0394] @gibson042:matrix.org I want to make an ecmarkup release pretty soon after the pins bugfix makes it in, so if you also want https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/694 to be included, you should remember to update it. [12:13:28.0741] also rebase so it hides all those baseline changes from the diff [12:14:24.0519] ok. I'm reviewing the pins PR now [12:59:44.0451] review submitted; if the release can wait for tomorrow I think https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/694 will be ready [13:05:56.0950] cool, thanks [13:06:04.0308] I'll do it early next week then 2026-07-03 [21:36:19.0328] > <@nicolo-ribaudo:matrix.org> ljharb I was wondering, would it be possible to create a GitHub action that merges PRs "the right way"? So that for those that do not have conflicts, the "ready to merge" label could work automatically without you having to do it manually I’m sure we can get that done 2026-07-06 [13:44:31.0795] I don't much care about https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/694/changes#r3530802437 , but I'd like to resolve it quickly so we can merge the PR and cut an ecmarkup release. So, who would like to weigh in on how `setMultipagePreference` ought to be wired to `#shortcuts-help`? 1. in multipage.js, as a listener on `document` with runtime filtering 2. in multipage.js, as a listener on `#shortcuts-help` that is dynamically added either immediately if that container already exists or in a DOMContentLoaded callback otherwise 3. in Spec.ts as an inline script element accompanying `#shortcuts-help` [13:45:28.0155] * I don't much care about https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/694/changes#r3530802437 , but I'd like to resolve it quickly so we can merge the PR and cut an ecmarkup release. So, who would like to weigh in on how `setMultipagePreference` ought to be wired to `#shortcuts-help`? 1. in multipage.js, as a listener on `document` with runtime filtering 2. in multipage.js, as a listener on `#shortcuts-help` that is dynamically added immediately if that container already exists or otherwise in a DOMContentLoaded callback 3. in Spec.ts as an inline script element accompanying `#shortcuts-help` [13:45:38.0265] * I don't much care about https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/694/changes#r3530802437 , but I'd like to resolve it quickly so we can merge the PR and cut an ecmarkup release. So, who would like to weigh in on how `setMultipagePreference` ought to be wired to `#shortcuts-help`? 1. in multipage.js, as a listener on `document` with runtime filtering 2. in multipage.js, as a listener on `#shortcuts-help` that is dynamically added immediately if that container already exists or otherwise in a DOMContentLoaded callback 3. in Spec.ts, as an inline script element accompanying `#shortcuts-help` 2026-07-07 [17:25:47.0324] I think it's not a very big deal no matter what we do [12:33:49.0365] Michael Ficarra I updated https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/696 to keep using the current U+2716 HEAVY MULTIPLICATION X character 2026-07-08 [12:58:38.0520] fwiw in the medium term humanless publishes won't be possible, so the biblio will need some kind of solution: https://github.blog/changelog/2026-07-08-npm-install-time-security-and-gat-bypass2fa-deprecation/ (OIDC will be the last way to do non-2FA publish, but it'll be killed as well eventually) we'll be able to stage things from CI but a human will still need to approve them [13:11:45.0175] * fwiw in the medium term humanless publishes won't be possible, so the biblio will need some kind of solution: https://github.blog/changelog/2026-07-08-npm-install-time-security-and-gat-bypass2fa-deprecation/ (OIDC will be the last way to do non-2FA publish, but non-staged OIDC will be killed as well eventually) we'll be able to stage things from CI but a human will still need to approve them [13:14:47.0219] where'd they say non-staged OIDC will be killed [13:14:51.0603] * where'd they say non-staged OIDC will be killed? [13:16:16.0070] I guess > plan to move automated publishing to trusted publishing (OIDC) or staged publishing with a human approval step is grammatically ambiguous; I read that as "to (trusted publishing) or (staged publishing with a human approval step)" rather than "to (trusted publishing or staged publishing) with a human approval step" 2026-07-09 [23:12:44.0948] it may or may not be in the blog post, but that's very much the plan [23:12:54.0901] the first step is indeed the way you read it [23:13:04.0468] but once that's shipped, non-staged OIDC is the next to go. [07:48:06.0070] huh, I would be pretty shocked by that [07:48:11.0453] is there anywhere they've communicated that? [08:54:50.0081] Apologies for missing the editor call today. I had an appointment this morning that took longer than expected. [09:13:18.0182] @rbuckton:matrix.org just take a look at https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/3904 please [09:13:34.0073] non-2FA-based publishes cover virtually every security incident on npm; not sure why it's shocking [09:13:48.0993] possibly not, if i find somewhere i'll let you know [09:14:29.0472] altho tbf, definitelytyped needs automated publishes so i'm sure there will be _some_ escape hatch, and i'm sure i could get tc39 included in that [12:12:57.0191] trusted publishing as currently conceived would equally well have prevented almost all such incidents so that is not a reason to move away from trusted publishing [12:13:05.0821] and lots of things need automated publishing [14:25:41.0232] that's definitely not accurate - a sizable chunk involved ATOs which trusted publishing doesn't stop - but we don't have to argue about it 2026-07-10 [12:58:56.0809] https://openjs-foundation.slack.com/archives/CTEDKHCTB/p1783615078092659?thread_ts=1783614457.670589&cid=CTEDKHCTB [12:59:15.0293] * https://openjs-foundation.slack.com/archives/CTEDKHCTB/p1783615078092659?thread\_ts=1783614457.670589&cid=CTEDKHCTB > I believe it's valuable to limit all oidc configs to stage only without exceptions, and my goal remains enabling users out of bypass2fa GAT, so I wanna make sure no one is blocked when we remove their ability to perform direct publishes. [12:59:23.0438] * https://openjs-foundation.slack.com/archives/CTEDKHCTB/p1783615078092659?thread\_ts=1783614457.670589&cid=CTEDKHCTB > [npm PM]: I believe it's valuable to limit all oidc configs to stage only without exceptions, and my goal remains enabling users out of bypass2fa GAT, so I wanna make sure no one is blocked when we remove their ability to perform direct publishes. [13:37:34.0618] thanks for the pointer, will try to follow up there [15:00:58.0529] FYI https://github.com/dcrousso/proposal-Map-take was added to the agenda for Stage 2.7 [15:01:04.0125] I've already reviewed [16:35:49.0264] 0 to 2.7 is pretty ambitious i think 2026-07-14 [07:44:20.0738] i'm out this week so won't make the editor call on thursday - please ping if anything needs my attention :) [09:19:09.0499] okay, just review the editor update slides once we post them 2026-07-15 [16:19:18.0272] anyone else to take a look at https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/711 before I land 2026-07-16 [08:19:40.0545] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1uCpu8x8Fj0cZ41eQpygsS5uuX-xjiFKW0mxq6z2hTZQ [09:09:32.0879] nicolo-ribaudo: Re https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3728: I think it would be clearer if it started with a sentence that's true both before + after the PR, to set the stage. E.g. "IHDR allows the host to supply an object that will become the global object. It then calls SetDefaultGlobalBindings to define the standard global properties on that object. [09:12:31.0611] * nicolo-ribaudo: Re https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3728: I think it would be clearer if it started with a sentence that's true both before + after the PR, to set the stage. E.g. "IHDR allows the host to supply an object that will become the global object. It then calls SetDefaultGlobalBindings to define the standard global properties on that object. In the status quo, it allows for the possibility that defining these properties might throw an error, which it passes to its caller. ..." [09:13:01.0582] * nicolo-ribaudo: Re https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3728: I think it would be clearer if it started with a sentence that's true both before + after the PR, to set the stage. E.g. "IHDR allows the host to supply an object that will become the global object. It then calls SetDefaultGlobalBindings to define the standard global properties on that object. \n In the status quo, it allows for the possibility that defining these properties might throw an error, which it passes to its caller. ..." [11:53:47.0140] Michael Ficarra nicolo-ribaudo: https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3874 and https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3911 have both been updated per today's discussion [12:29:49.0191] LGTM, thanks! [12:32:35.0624] i think i forgot to mention i checked the stage 3 proposals after the [[Get]]/[[Set]] rename to see if they're affected, i can do a pass over active stage 1/2 proposals next week [12:32:56.0703] most proposals seem to update ecmarkup and biblio pretty infrequently [12:49:00.0546] yeah I basically never update ecmarkup on my proposals 2026-07-17 [10:37:54.0664] who is giving the update at plenary next week and how much time do you need? 2026-07-20 [12:24:16.0812] 😭 implementers don't use the "can run user code" feature [12:26:10.0786] we should write a "how to read the spec" doc [12:26:13.0088] that has, like, that [12:26:57.0011] also, it's just occurred to me that we are currently manually doing that "can run user code" for `[[GetPrototypeOf]]` etc invocations, and with https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3912 that could start to be automatic, with some extra work [12:28:16.0098] We should maybe show a hint on how to see the help box somewhere more visible than knowing to press ? [12:28:20.0785] Like, at the top/bottom of the sidebar [12:29:02.0193] possibly also that but there's a bunch of other knowledge around e.g. the References pane, pins, etc 2026-07-23 [12:07:24.0459] I think https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/694 or something broke a part of multipage [12:07:34.0560] it used to be that https://tc39.es/ecma262/multipage/#prod-FunctionStatementList worked and now it does not [12:08:16.0592] you can see it working in older editions still https://tc39.es/ecma262/2025/multipage/#prod-FunctionStatementList [12:21:33.0791] confirmed; an extra `/multipage` is being added to the path. I'll fix it. [13:00:35.0001] https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/pull/713 2026-07-24 [20:00:04.0257] nicolo-ribaudo: you stamped and then unstamped https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3896; is there anything left to do there? or did you just want to not merge it at all in preference for https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2962? I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't take too long [02:26:23.0077] It's just that the other PRs touching similar things (RunCallerContext and RunSuspendedContext) got reviews from more editors, so I wanted to give folks a chance to review that one before merging it [02:27:05.0458] linus / Richard Gibson "more editors" is you in this case [02:27:09.0154] * linus / Richard Gibson "more editors" is you in this case :) [02:29:46.0357] ✅ 2026-07-25 [22:02:11.0838] we should remove the good first issue label 2026-07-27 [03:36:01.0362] Fyi https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3931 is a bot (https://agentscan.tools/user/uditdewan) [08:59:31.0720] https://es.discourse.group/t/es2026-feature-summary-missing-in-published-spec/2632 [09:01:54.0702] strange, it looks like it's not on the 2026 branch for some reason: https://tc39.es/ecma262/2026/ [09:02:04.0559] @ljharb:matrix.org any idea what happened? [09:03:01.0240] hm, not sure. I’ll update it and get the new one to ecma later today [12:53:12.0661] so I guess we should cancel our periodic Monday editor calls now? 2026-07-28 [17:13:09.0254] fixed https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/releases/tag/es2026-errata 2026-07-29 [09:14:29.0976] the await dictionary PR has suggested changes: `s/method/function/` the spec uses both `method` and `function` interchangeably my questions are: 1. is `function` preferred over `method` as a general rule? 2. if yes, why should we not do `s/method/function/g` on the whole thing? [09:16:19.0782] IIRC we consistently use "function" for the preamble for things that are not on a prototype and "method" for things that are [09:16:25.0439] probably this should be documented in the editorial conventions [10:19:40.0775] See https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/2576 point 1(c) and pretty much all of the subsequent discussion [11:22:35.0961] In the rendered ecma262, could the early-return symbol get a tooltip? I just encountered one for the first time, and (at my default font size) couldn't discern what it depicted. Hovering/clicking it did nothing, and I couldn't select it to find out what the Unicode character was. [11:23:41.0832] that's a good idea [11:23:46.0557] PRs welcome [11:23:52.0286] otherwise open an ecmarkup issue [11:25:11.0360] actually, I don't know how we'd do that since it's in a CSS `::before` [11:25:46.0686] yeah [11:55:27.0680] https://github.com/tc39/ecmarkup/issues/717 2026-07-30 [20:52:37.0953] Why https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3933 is not generating the preview automatically? [20:59:45.0363] Membership in tc39 needs to be public [01:48:42.0039] all the more reason to make our structured delegates dataset public [08:03:19.0234] ljharb do you think you could publish a `@tc39/ecma404-biblio` package on npm? :) It probably doesn't need the whole GH actions setup [08:03:45.0431] https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3933 would benefit for it, and I think we might also use it in ECMA-426 at some point [08:15:36.0468] it's a little tempting to just hardcode the file instead of incurring the extra package download on every CI run [09:11:18.0215] @nicolo-ribaudo:matrix.org https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3759#discussion_r3684093134 `hoursPerNanosecond` and `minutesPerNanosecond` are very small values 😛. I think you need to reverse them. [10:05:57.0290] While going through the Temporal comments I forgot about https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/3759#discussion_r3614211074 from me [10:07:53.0020] yeah, we still have plenty to discuss next time 2026-07-31 [21:23:08.0531] Hm. PR #3206 settled on "are the same X Record" for comparing Records, but that doesn't appear in the Editorial-Conventions. [21:24:27.0014] (The 'Comparisons' section doesn't mention Records at all.)