Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Unicode MessageFormat 2.0 (Issue #1042)

aphillips left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1042)

> I'll post my review now, in case any of the minor notes can help while finalizing the spec. The soonest we can check whether there's TAG consensus on this is the week of March 17, which might be too late.

Thank you very much for this early review! A few (personal) comments:

> 
> Some minor notes on the spec:
> ...
> 
> "A message with markup that should not be copied:" uses "@can-copy" to mark the text that should _not_ be copied?

I think that's an example. Good point tho'.

> In [option resolution](https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr35/dev/tr35-messageFormat.html#option-resolution), "If rv is a fallback value: If supported, emit a Bad Option error." doesn't say what to do if the BadOption error isn't supported.

That appears to be an indentation problem. The step "Set res[id] to be rv" should be executed even if rv is a fallback value.

> 
> "The resolution of markup MUST always succeed.", but it calls option resolution which can fail?

Note that:
> > The result of [option resolution](https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr35/dev/tr35-messageFormat.html#option-resolution) MUST be a (possibly empty) mapping of string identifiers to values; that is, errors MAY be emitted, but such errors MUST NOT be fatal.

So option resolution cannot fail (but it may emit diagnostic errors).



-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1042#issuecomment-2704867998
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1042/2704867998@github.com>