Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Set IntlLegacyConstructedSymbol to non-deprecated #25749

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 24, 2025

Conversation

ddbeck
Copy link
Collaborator

@ddbeck ddbeck commented Jan 23, 2025

Summary

The spec doesn't appear to discourage these features.

Test results and supporting details

These features are specified as a "Normative Optional" but not "Normative Optional, Legacy" behavior. Given the distinction that the spec makes between legacy and non-legacy parts of the language, "Normative optional" should not be marked as deprecated.

Confusingly, the symbol's description contains the substring Legacy. This was a later addition to the spec that doesn't have much of a paper trail (and is older than the contemporary specification's "legacy" terminology—that is, it didn't have a defined meaning at the time). I think we should weigh the spec's explicit conformance text over a partial string match.

Related issues

web-platform-dx/web-features#2564
#17410

These features are specified as a "Normative Optional" but not "Normative
Optional, Legacy" behavior.

Given the distinction that the spec makes between legacy and non-legacy
parts of the language, these features should not be marked as deprecated.

Spec: https://tc39.es/ecma402/#sec-chaindatetimeformat
Spec: https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-conformance
Spec: https://tc39.es/ecma402/#sec-chainnumberformat
@github-actions github-actions bot added data:js Compat data for JS/ECMAScript features. https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/JavaScript size:xs [PR only] 0-6 LoC changed labels Jan 23, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@caugner caugner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense to me.

@Josh-Cena
Copy link
Member

Do you think we should consult TC39 first? ECMA402 does not use the "legacy" verbiage at all at the moment, which suggests either it's not an editorial convention there yet (since it has no normative impact on conformance whatsoever), or they don't consider any part of ECMA402 as legacy.

@ddbeck
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ddbeck commented Jan 23, 2025

@Josh-Cena If you'd like to ask that'd be great, but I don't think we should wait on an answer. I did consider the idea that ECMA-402 did not take up the convention from ECMA-262. But since both specs point at each other for conformance, it's hard to read it in a way that allows one spec to make the distinction without the other doing the same.

Additionally, some of the current specification text is less than a year old (tc39/ecma402@7018fba). I figured they knew what they were doing.

Copy link
Member

@Elchi3 Elchi3 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we should go ahead for now. Happy to change it if we hear otherwise from specification folks.

@Elchi3 Elchi3 merged commit 817aceb into mdn:main Jan 24, 2025
8 checks passed
@ddbeck ddbeck deleted the chaindatetimeformat-standards branch January 24, 2025 10:10
ddbeck added a commit to ddbeck/web-features that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2025
Elchi3 pushed a commit to web-platform-dx/web-features that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
data:js Compat data for JS/ECMAScript features. https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/JavaScript size:xs [PR only] 0-6 LoC changed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants