Skip to content

Markup: rendering edits for 2025 edition & beyond #3623

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

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

gesa
Copy link
Member

@gesa gesa commented Jun 11, 2025

This PR

  • Cleans up and improves comments on ECMA-262-specific print styles
  • Restores the (mandatory? i thought?) version line to metadata
  • Transforms 5 identical cells into one cell with rowspan 5 in table "Module fields after the initial Evaluate() call"
    • we made this change last year as well, I must have failed to push those changes back to main
  • Clarifies in the colophon that ecmarkup is used for Ecma specifications, not just ECMAScript specifications

@nicolo-ribaudo
Copy link
Member

  • Transforms 5 identical cells into one cell with rowspan 5 in table "Module fields after the initial Evaluate() call"
    • we made this change last year as well, I must have failed to push those changes back to main

I'm going to complain just a little bit because I should have complained last year, but I don't really like it. They are 5 cells that happen to have the same value, not just a single cell.

@gesa
Copy link
Member Author

gesa commented Jun 12, 2025

@nicolo-ribaudo That's totally legit. I think it's important to keep in the printable version (it's the only way all the text fits on the page) but I do not feel strongly—at all—about adding it to the web version, aka the actual source of truth.

@michaelficarra michaelficarra added the editor call to be discussed in the next editor call label Jun 16, 2025
@linusg
Copy link
Member

linusg commented Jun 25, 2025

This looks fine for me on a small screen in the web version, not sure if changes for the print version are really needed:

image

Copy link
Contributor

@bakkot bakkot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree we should back out the colspan change; we can make some other permanent change later, or just keep applying manual edits to the PDF. Otherwise LGTM.

@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

If the evaluating-async enum is not wrapping for print, maybe we could add a zero-width space to help encourage Prince?

@michaelficarra michaelficarra removed the editor call to be discussed in the next editor call label Jun 25, 2025
@gesa
Copy link
Member Author

gesa commented Jul 2, 2025

It's wrapping. The page just doesn't fit the table.

@nicolo-ribaudo
Copy link
Member

nicolo-ribaudo commented Jul 3, 2025

If we renamed [[PendingAsyncDependencies]] to [[PendingAsyncDeps]], would it fit? Maybe that could be an option to consider.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants