Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Add options to close (spec) #649

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Feb 15, 2024
Merged

Add options to close (spec) #649

merged 6 commits into from
Feb 15, 2024

Conversation

mihnita
Copy link
Collaborator

@mihnita mihnita commented Feb 14, 2024

Closes #636

@mihnita mihnita requested review from eemeli and aphillips February 14, 2024 23:33
Copy link
Member

@aphillips aphillips left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

There might be a quibble about whether we want separate open/standalone/close productions or separate / from } on standalone, but I think this is pretty darned clean.

Thanks!!

@aphillips aphillips added syntax Issues related with syntax or ABNF Action-Item Action item assigned by the WG LDML45 LDML45 Release (Tech Preview) labels Feb 14, 2024
@mihnita
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mihnita commented Feb 15, 2024

There might be a quibble about whether we want separate open/standalone/close productions or separate / from } on standalone, but I think this is pretty darned clean.

ACK.

I thought about this, and decided to use this style to bring it closer to the json data model, where we have 3 completely separated structures for markup-open/standalone/close.

They are also not unified in the data-model/README:

type Markup = MarkupOpen | MarkupStandalone | MarkupClose;
interface MarkupOpen {
    type: "markup";
    kind: "open";
    ...
}
interface MarkupStandalone {
    type: "markup";
    kind: "standalone";
    ...
}
interface MarkupClose {
    type: "markup";
     kind: "close";
    ....
}

On the other side, in the data-model dtd they are all unified.


I would prefer the unified style.

So the readme would be more like

type Markup = MarkupOpen | MarkupStandalone | MarkupClose;
interface Markup {
    type: "markup";
    kind; // one of "open", "close", "standalone"
    ...
}

But I didn't want to include anything controversial.

@mihnita mihnita mentioned this pull request Feb 15, 2024
@mihnita
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mihnita commented Feb 15, 2024

I would also like to fix this issue: "Extra spaces in markup #650" (that I've just created)

Copy link
Collaborator

@eemeli eemeli left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall ok, but see inline simplifications.

@mihnita
Copy link
Collaborator Author

mihnita commented Feb 15, 2024

All feedback implemented, thank you all!
(ready for round two :-)

@aphillips aphillips merged commit d10a06b into unicode-org:main Feb 15, 2024
eemeli added a commit to messageformat/messageformat that referenced this pull request Feb 23, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Action-Item Action item assigned by the WG LDML45 LDML45 Release (Tech Preview) syntax Issues related with syntax or ABNF
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add options to close
4 participants