Meeting Agenda : 2020-11-16

[romulocintra]

Intl.MessageFormat - WG Meeting

Time: 10am PDT (6pm GMT)

Meeting Notes :Link

Call : Link

TCQ: Link (How to use TCQ)

Agenda

• Review Taskforce progress for #103
• Present "message references"
• Present “context data” for referenced messages.
• Discuss whether we need internal selectors given message-level selectors and message references
• Do we need a formal subgroup?

[eemeli]

Here's the executive summary of the results of the issue #103 task force's latest meeting:

Consensus 1: Include message references in the data model.

Discussion: The implementers would find a way to include references anyways, but including it in the data model (standard) can make it subject to best practices. It’s still possible for users to do “the wrong thing” (ex: concatenation of strings/messages), but then you would find it more difficult to achieve.

One of the drawbacks of message references is that referenced messages effectively have a public API (names of parameters, variables, variants, etc.) which must be consistent across all callsites. This leads us to consensus 2.

Consensus 2: Allow parameters passed with message references to the message being referenced and validate it.

Discussion: The variables/fields passed should not be completely untyped and unchecked. We want a validation mechanism that can allow providing early error feedback to the translators & developers. We need to decide on when the validation can & should happen, including the meaning of “build time” and “run time” in regards to validation.