Richard Gibson

Sure, that seems fine.

I'm considering it a change that would be part of Temporal, but if it makes more sense to discuss there then that's fine.

Affirmed by https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2781 : https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/2781#discussion_r989222467

I'm planning to rebase and update this PR after #2021 lands.

Yep, it should be done this week.

@syg Can you elaborate on what you mean by "rename the 402 specification to drop the year number in the official name"? Both ECMA-262 and ECMA-402 follow the same pattern...

ECMA-402 text segmentation boundary determination is intentionally implementation-dependent, as documented at https://tc39.es/ecma402/#annex-implementation-dependent-behaviour and https://tc39.es/ecma402/#sec-findboundary . > Boundary determination is implementation-dependent, but general default algorithms are specified in Unicode Standard Annex...

> I think it would be reasonable to spell that out in the spec. Pick one as the default behavior and make the other one configurable with an API setting....

That seems like the kind of thing that should be pushed for in Unicode so that ECMA-402 can adopt it as a downstream consumer.

We would also like to push for an improvement in https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/#Word_Boundary_Rules that provides an example above WB6 similar to the one above WB8, but don't know how to pursue that....