Shane F. Carr
Shane F. Carr
Also, specifically with regard to `100-kilometer`: in order to fully support vehicle fuel mileage, we need to add this unit as well as `gallon-imperial`, used in CA and GB. (Note...
> What is the major concern around adding new units - implementation cost, increased download size for users or increased API surface? Mainly increased download size. Most browsers still ship...
Supporting "options bags of individual field lengths" puts the same requirements on implementations such as ICU4X. In particular, it is highly customizable, meaning that implementations need to ship the DateTimePatternGenerator...
The spec defines the schema, not a specific interface, but for MessageFormat 2.0, an interface could look something like ``` {$someDate :datetime fieldSet=[year, month, day] length=medium} ``` ICU4X is planning...
An implementation should reject something like `fieldSet=[year, hour] length=medium` in order to be conformant, if that's what you're asking. That's a good call-out that I'll make sure gets into the...
> Note that rejecting the options bag and taking in semantic skeletons means that the ICU4C and ICU4J up-to-date implementations of MF2 will have to wait until the semantic skeletons...
Semantic skeleta are designed to be implemented on top of classical skeleta, which includes ECMAScript-style options bags. In other words, semantic skeleta are a subset of Intl.DateTimeFormat with a facelift.
The semantic skeleton spec technical preview was just approved for CLDR 46. https://github.com/unicode-org/cldr/pull/4031 Please note the section defining how to map from a semantic skeleton to a classical skeleton.
> @[aphillips](https://github.com/aphillips) aphillips added [LDML 47](https://github.com/unicode-org/message-format-wg/labels/LDML%2047) and removed [LDML46.1](https://github.com/unicode-org/message-format-wg/labels/LDML46.1) labels [last week](https://github.com/unicode-org/message-format-wg/issues/866#event-15338786348) I assume this means that we still plan to fix this in LDML 47.
> > I assume this means that we still plan to fix this in LDML 47. > > This means that the WG would like it to be addressed in...