how-we-work icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
how-we-work copied to clipboard
verified publisher icon tc39

missing term: "protocol"

Open gibson042 opened this issue 1 month ago • 3 comments

TC39 proposals and plenary discussions frequently refer to "protocols", but the term is not ~~used~~ defined in the specification. A definition should be provided in terminology.md.

gibson042 avatar Nov 20 '25 04:11 gibson042

It's used 6 times in the spec

ljharb avatar Nov 20 '25 07:11 ljharb

Used but not defined, so still reasonable to define it here I think (and if it were defined in the spec we could have a link from our glossary here to the spec; it's not like everyone will have memorized all 387 <dfn>'d terms).

bakkot avatar Nov 20 '25 07:11 bakkot

It's used 6 times in the spec

You can't count a reference to RFC 7231 “Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content” in the Bibliography as a use of the TC39 term.

I guess I am willing to grant you "async iterator protocol" in the Introduction and "yield* protocol violation" in Evaluation of yield * |AssignmentExpression| and maybe "there was a protocol violation" in %AsyncFromSyncIteratorPrototype%.throw, but all of those prose excerpts can be read generically and on their own fail to convey that "protocol" is a local term of art.

gibson042 avatar Nov 20 '25 07:11 gibson042