Draft Technical Report

[Ethan-Arrowood]

Authors an ECMA Technical Report for the runtime-keys work.

Closes: #23

[gesa]

Cloudflare's workerd is not ideal, it's too late to ask them to change that right?

[gesa]

🤔 Should this use more precision than "brief" ? A maximum character length maybe? (similarly should all fields have a character length limit?)

[gesa]

Also I think "required" is fine here, but if the secretariat raises any concerns, maybe we switch to "mandatory"?

[Ethan-Arrowood]

Happy to make the switch if the secretariat raises a concern.

I'm indifferent on changing "brief". If someone has a compelling maximum character limit then I won't necessarily disagree, but I personally do not have a good idea for what that would be. Open to other wording suggestions as well.

[Ethan-Arrowood]

What is wrong with workerd? I think that is a unique enough key since it matches their actual runtime name: https://github.com/cloudflare/workerd

Contrary to worker or workers which I would absolutely agree is too ambiguous or general.

[gesa]

For consistency, use TC55 when referring to the TC, and use WinterTC55 when referring to the GitHub org.

I am v excited about this TR. Now I need to write the ecmarkup to generate it as not-a-standard

[gesa]

@Ethan-Arrowood Bringing your notes from my PR into this primary PR

• Drop the word "conditions" from ~line 70
• Spelling of "organization" to "organisation" in the JSON too
• "Proposing entries for future editions" -> "Proposing new runtime key entries" ?
• Add link to repo in proposal process steps
• Fix some grammar in proposal process ~line 308 "The pull request is be formally approved..."
• Add link to runtime-keys.json file (repo main branch or maybe commit at time of publish?) in the "Machine-readable canonical source" section

I'm deeply conflicted about the spelling of organisation within the JSON. Ecma does formally use Oxford GB English, but when it comes to code, designers have historically opted for en-US spellings.

[andreubotella]

To fix the build, replace .github/workflows/deploy.yml line 19 with:

          npm install
          npm run build
          mv out.html out/index.html

[pi0]

I think lagon is deprecated.

[Ethan-Arrowood]

the repo does seem to be in a state of public archive since March 15th 2026. And the website directs all users to Vercel instead now: https://lagon.app/

I agree this should be marked deprecated; unfortunately I do not believe we can make any additional changes at this time. Especially since this would require committee approval. I think we let things move to publishing and then we make this deprecated for the next version of the report.