You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Specifically, our definition of Stage 3 doesn't match the other two, and is probably what they are trying to more specifically exclude. It is in other contexts, to quote Dom, Stage 3 means "finished, pending editorial nit review---but since multiple implementations haven't happened yet, there's a reasonable chance that we'll discover something is broken, and need to fix the normative content". That reflects more of the consensus we have in Stage 4 in our process.
Would it make sense to align our definitions so that "Stage N" means the same thing everywhere, especially if we hope other CG/WG will pick up our stages?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
There is a current discussion in WHATWG about clarifying what makes Stage 3, and it seems it aligns with TC39. This arose because there was some ambiguity about what constitutes Stage 3. I think we fell victim to that ambiguity.
Specifically, our definition of Stage 3 doesn't match the other two, and is probably what they are trying to more specifically exclude. It is in other contexts, to quote Dom, Stage 3 means "finished, pending editorial nit review---but since multiple implementations haven't happened yet, there's a reasonable chance that we'll discover something is broken, and need to fix the normative content". That reflects more of the consensus we have in Stage 4 in our process.
Would it make sense to align our definitions so that "Stage N" means the same thing everywhere, especially if we hope other CG/WG will pick up our stages?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: