Skip to content

Editorial: the Object constructor's parameter is expected to be present #3682

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Editorial: the Object constructor's parameter is expected to be present #3682

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
9 changes: 2 additions & 7 deletions spec.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -30447,7 +30447,7 @@ <h1>The Object Constructor</h1>
</ul>

<emu-clause id="sec-object-value">
<h1>Object ( [ _value_ ] )</h1>
<h1>Object ( _value_ )</h1>
<p>This function performs the following steps when called:</p>
<emu-alg>
1. If NewTarget is neither *undefined* nor the active function object, then
Expand All @@ -30460,12 +30460,7 @@ <h1>Object ( [ _value_ ] )</h1>

<emu-clause id="sec-properties-of-the-object-constructor">
<h1>Properties of the Object Constructor</h1>
<p>The Object constructor:</p>
<ul>
<li>has a [[Prototype]] internal slot whose value is %Function.prototype%.</li>
<li>has a *"length"* property whose value is *1*<sub>𝔽</sub>.</li>
<li>has the following additional properties:</li>
</ul>
<p>The Object constructor has a [[Prototype]] internal slot whose value is %Function.prototype%. It also has the following properties:</p>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are multiple sections which still uses the "ul" listing even with 2 items

and also I don't see any existing paragraph that uses the new style.

So I think it's better keeping the "ul" listing style, with the length bullet removed, for the consistency.

Copy link
Member Author

@michaelficarra michaelficarra Aug 26, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see the benefit of this kind of consistency. I think it's awkward to use a bulleted list to describe just 2 aspects of something, especially when they are as terse as this. I'd prefer to change the existing cases to use phrasing like what I've introduced here, and I also don't think that work would block landing this in its current form because, again, that kind of consistency isn't necessary. I'll open an issue.

edit: #3684

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yeah, makes sense.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't see the benefit of this kind of consistency.

One benefit is easier automated processing + checking.

E.g., the "WebIDL in ES" effort wants "to produce a representation of ECMAScript built-ins that could be automatically generated from the ECMAScript specification HTML file", and these <ul> elements appear to be relevant to that.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also, I think it can help human readers. If you want certain kinds of info about an intrinsic object, you can look for a <p>+<ul> combo of a certain 'shape'.


<emu-clause id="sec-object.assign">
<h1>Object.assign ( _target_, ..._sources_ )</h1>
Expand Down