Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Should we update "Numbering systems with simple digit mappings" for newer CLDR/Unicode versions? #183

Closed
anba opened this issue Oct 3, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Should we update "Numbering systems with simple digit mappings" for newer CLDR/Unicode versions? #183

anba opened this issue Oct 3, 2017 · 2 comments
Assignees
@FrankYFTang
Labels
c: spec Component: spec editorial issues s: discuss Status: TG2 must discuss to move forward

Comments

@anba
Copy link
Contributor

anba commented Oct 3, 2017

https://tc39.github.io/ecma402/#table-numbering-system-digits is currently limited to the numbering systems defined in CLDR21 which are representable with Unicode 5.0 compatible characters. Does it makes sense to update this table and require more numbering systems?
@caridy caridy added question editorial Involves an editorial fix and removed editorial Involves an editorial fix labels Oct 3, 2017
@littledan littledan self-assigned this Oct 12, 2017
@littledan
Copy link
Member

littledan commented Oct 12, 2017 •
edited
Loading

If we have this table, it should be kept up to date. I'm wondering, though, how much value it adds to maintain this, as opposed to just defer to implementations (which will do this anyway). cc @NorbertLindenberg

@littledan littledan mentioned this issue Jun 24, 2018
Merged
@sffc sffc added c: spec Component: spec editorial issues s: discuss Status: TG2 must discuss to move forward labels Mar 19, 2019
@anba anba mentioned this issue May 21, 2020
Closed
@sffc sffc assigned FrankYFTang and unassigned littledan Jun 5, 2020
@sffc sffc removed the question label Jun 5, 2020
@sffc
Copy link
Contributor

sffc commented Jun 5, 2020

This was fixed by @FrankYFTang in #437.

@sffc sffc closed this as completed Jun 5, 2020
@sffc sffc mentioned this issue Jul 2, 2021
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@FrankYFTang FrankYFTang

Labels
c: spec Component: spec editorial issues s: discuss Status: TG2 must discuss to move forward
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@caridy @littledan @sffc @anba @FrankYFTang