Update & expand spec text to cover fallback values and pattern selection #35
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ryzokuken
approved these changes
Dec 13, 2023
eemeli
commented
Dec 13, 2023
ryzokuken
approved these changes
Dec 15, 2023
dminor
approved these changes
Dec 15, 2023
| <li>[[Runtime]] is an Object ...TODO</li> | ||
| <li> | ||
| [[RequestedLocales]] is a List of String values | ||
| with the canonicalized language tags of the requested locales |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since RequestedLocales is user provided, do we want to canonicalize here rather than preserve what the user provided? It would be nice to not have to preserve the user data, but I'm wondering if this could end up surprising someone?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My thinking was that canonicalization would do two beneficial things:
- Make it easier for a custom function implementation to deal with its inputs. OTOH, it could call
Intl.getCanonicalLocales()on itslocalesargument, so that's maybe not so important? - Make invalid locale tags produce a constructor error, rather than leaving it until a later
format()call. AFAIK this matches what happens with all other Intl formatters.
Co-authored-by: Daniel Minor <dminor@mozilla.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I finally found some time to expand the spec text here. It's intended to be implementing the behaviour described in the README, as well as following the MF2 spec.
The text I'm proposing here makes explicit reference to not just the MF2 syntax, but also the JSON Schema definition of its data model. To be specific, the data model after the changes of unicode-org/message-format-wg#548 get merged. Is that sort of reference acceptable?
I'm also proposing to define the SelectVariant abstract operation as "implementation-defined", and to refer for its internals to the Pattern Selection section of the Unicode MessageFormat 2.0 specification. Is that ok? The language defining the algorithm there isn't exactly TC39-ese, but it's very close.
This still leaves the GetMessageFunctions() and ResolveExpression() abstract operations as TODO, and they're hiding probably at least as much spec behind them as I've got written down so far.