Edits to align with Ecma house style#31
Edits to align with Ecma house style#31Ethan-Arrowood merged 1 commit intoWinterTC55:technical-reportfrom
Conversation
gesa
left a comment
gesa
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Ethan-Arrowood I hope this gives you something useful to work from! Let me know if you want to collab on any further edits
| <p>The authoritative, machine-readable form of the runtime key registry is maintained as a JSON file: <code>runtime-keys.json</code>.</p> | ||
| <emu-annex id="sec-machine-readable-source"> | ||
| <h1>Machine-readable canonical source</h1> | ||
| <p>The authoritative, machine-readable form of the runtime key source is maintained as a JSON file: <code>runtime-keys.json</code>.</p> |
| <h1>JSON Schema</h1> | ||
| <p>The registry JSON file conforms to the following structure:</p> | ||
| <h1>JSON schema</h1> | ||
| <p>The runtime keys source data JSON file conforms to the following structure:</p> |
|
|
||
| <emu-clause id="term-runtime"> | ||
| <h1><dfn variants="ECMAScript runtimes">ECMAScript runtime</dfn></h1> | ||
| <p>implementation of the ECMA-262 ECMAScript langauge specification</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <p>implementation of the ECMA-262 ECMAScript langauge specification</p> | |
| <p>implementation of the ECMA-262 ECMAScript® language specification</p> |
whoops
| "watch": "ecmarkup --watch --verbose --lint-spec spec.html out.html" | ||
| }, | ||
| "devDependencies": { | ||
| "ecmarkup": "^22.0.0" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "ecmarkup": "^22.0.0" | |
| "ecmarkup": "^23.0.2" |
while I was working on my review the 262 editors were hard at work releasing new versions of ecmarkup
|
Amazing! Thank you for this. I will review the comments soon and see how best to land this. I likely will land these changes directly into my draft branch and then we can continue iterating on isolated parts, but I'll make sure to review first before merging. And the top-level points you shared all sounds good to me. |
| <p>Each runtime key entry includes the following metadata:</p> | ||
| <ul> | ||
| <li><strong>Organization</strong> (required): The organization or individual responsible for the runtime</li> | ||
| <li><strong>Organization</strong> (required): The organisation or individual responsible for the runtime</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which spelling should we use? This metadata is going to need to be strictly defined since it'll be referenced in build script.
I noticed you've switched many spellings from z to s. Is that an ECMA thing? Should we switch the metadata to "organisation" too?
Ethan-Arrowood
left a comment
Ethan-Arrowood
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I approve of all changes you've made here! Excellent work. I noted down a few additional follow up edits that I can make separately. They are:
- 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
beformally 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
* get started on technical report * Edits to align with Ecma house style (#31) * additional edits from reviews and create build script * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Aki <hi@akiro.se> * update spec.html for remaining review feedback * update package.json to enforce dep and runtime versions * remove old files, update gitignore * update workflow * Add pending runtimes to technical report (#33) * add pending runtimes * add pythonmonkey and andromeda. order by key * order by key, fix table rendering --------- Co-authored-by: Aki <hi@akiro.se>
2 participants
@Ethan-Arrowood this your first draft is so good that I had the cognitive overhead to tackle house styles stuff, which I usually safe for far later drafts. I'm incredibly impressed, what a phenomenal start.
The below changes are just a starting point, not an ending one. Do not be afraid to further (aggressively even!) edit. I'll do a review with comments forthright so it's clear why some of the edits were made.
The most important notes here are: