Addison Phillips

Valuable exercise but not required for the 45 timeframe

I18N discussed this in our [call of 2024-04-18](https://www.w3.org/2024/04/18-i18n-minutes.html) and I drew an action to respond. The initial reaction I18N has was that this sounds like a problem and is worth...

The specific question for LDML45 release is: do we need to define something other than regexes in order to deliver the default registry? If so, what?

The unresolved tension here is that MF2.0 turned out to be untyped at the specification level. Implementations in strongly typed languages will want to make use of typing. Weakly or...

I think this is being addressed in the default registry work. A regex is insufficient to describe the implementation defined input types. So we use text for that. What a...

@macchiati noted: > As long as the regex is an 'outer bound'. That is, the function won't > accept any literal that doesn't match the regex, but *doesn't have to*...

Moved to v46

Have a look at #450 (expression attributes), which is a potential mechanism that we might use for this. We could use options, as you show in your example patterns, but...

> Agreed that LLMs can be an ultimate solution — and would certainly be for > any really complicated messages. But there are limitations to their > usage also (otherwise...

Would it be convenient for us to do a joint call (such as joining your next call) to discuss? On the one hand, the purpose of this seems clear. On...