Skip to content

Prepare front-door for Tech Preview #697

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

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Mar 1, 2024
Merged

Conversation

aphillips
Copy link
Member

This includes a short paragraph under "What is MessageFormat 2?" whose purpose is to satisfy #693 (the need for a v45 "intro paragraph")

This includes a short paragraph under "What is MessageFormat 2?" whose purpose is to satisfy #693 (the need for a v45 "intro paragraph")
@aphillips aphillips added organizational Issues related with MF group organization and workflow editorial Issue is non-normative Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference Action-Item Action item assigned by the WG LDML45 LDML45 Release (Tech Preview) labels Feb 29, 2024
README.md Outdated
It is intended for adoption by programming languages and APIs.
It enables the integration of internationalization APIs (such as date and number formats),
grammatical matching (such as plurals or genders),
as well as user-defined formats and message selectors,
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"user" may be misunderstood by a general audience.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reworded to talk about extensibility.

@aphillips aphillips requested a review from macchiati February 29, 2024 19:09
aphillips and others added 3 commits February 29, 2024 11:41
Co-authored-by: Eemeli Aro <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Eemeli Aro <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Eemeli Aro <[email protected]>
README.md Outdated
Comment on lines 29 to 34
The MFWG specifically requests feedback on the following issues:
- How to perform non-integer exact number selection [#675](https://github.com/unicode-org/message-format-wg/issues/675)
- Whether `markup` should support additional spaces [#650](https://github.com/unicode-org/message-format-wg/issues/650)
- Whether "attribute-like" behavior is needed and what form it should take [#642](https://github.com/unicode-org/message-format-wg/issues/642)
- Whether to relax constraints on complex message start [#610](https://github.com/unicode-org/message-format-wg/issues/610)
- Whether omitting the `*` variant key should be permitted [#603](https://github.com/unicode-org/message-format-wg/issues/603)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Per recent discussions, I think we also care about feedback on the resolved value details (#678), and I personally would also like feedback on the desirability of syntax divergence between simple and complex messages (which is more general than #610 in its current form, cf. #610 (comment) and its outbound link tree). I guess the latter might be #512?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for this. The list here consists strictly of items tagged with "seek feedback" label. I agree with most of your observations and will add some details shortly.

I personally would also like feedback on the desirability of syntax divergence between simple and complex messages (which is more general than #610 in its current form, cf. #610 (comment) and its outbound link tree). I guess the latter might be #512?

I think these are details of the syntax? Wouldn't feedback about the syntax in general work better? How intuitive (or unintuitive) it is to use, whether simple-vs-complex is easy to grok, etc.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think these are details of the syntax? Wouldn't feedback about the syntax in general work better? How intuitive (or unintuitive) it is to use, whether simple-vs-complex is easy to grok, etc.

Yes, but we should have specific prompts to get specific feedback.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Always happy to get suggestions 😸

@aphillips
Copy link
Member Author

I'm going to commit this so that @srl295 and I can make the Monday deadline with text.

This is not the final word on our front door text. Submit more PRs if you're unhappy with what I've done here.

@aphillips aphillips merged commit 608420b into main Mar 1, 2024
@aphillips aphillips deleted the aphillips-tech-preview-docs branch March 1, 2024 18:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Action-Item Action item assigned by the WG Agenda+ Requested for upcoming teleconference editorial Issue is non-normative LDML45 LDML45 Release (Tech Preview) organizational Issues related with MF group organization and workflow
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants