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
We've run into issues before in CSSWG where someone has interpreted the priority of constituencies in an overly-absolute manner. This sentence captures our use of the term, which has served us well.
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: terminology.md
+3-1Lines changed: 3 additions & 1 deletion
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -496,12 +496,14 @@ Some real-world examples:
496
496
497
497
The idea that when differing perspectives come into conflict, our decisions ought to prioritize them in the following (descending) order:
498
498
499
-
1. End users
499
+
1. End users (tool and website users)
500
500
2. JavaScript authors
501
501
3. JavaScript engine implementers
502
502
4. ECMAScript specification authors
503
503
5. Theoretical purity
504
504
505
+
This ordering is not absolute; a small cost or benefit to a higher-priority group can be overridden by a sufficiently large cost or benefit to a lower-priority group.
506
+
505
507
While this is not an explicitly adopted goal of TC39, it is a common standards concept which delegates often refer to.
0 commit comments