cleanup proposals page

[peetklecha]

cleanup the proposals page:

• move proposals to correct stage (and remove Time Zone Canonicalization which merged into Temporal)
• update last presented date and notes links
• cull dead links
• remove champions who are known to no longer be championing

[ptomato]

Time Zone Canonicalization shouldn't be deleted as far as I'm aware. We adopted most of its text into Temporal but it still has text that needs to go into ECMA-402 when reaching stage 4. cc @justingrant in case I'm wrong

[ljharb]

there's a lot going on in this commit, and not all of it is correct.

immutable arraybuffers remain at stage 2.7; Time Zone Canonicalization shouldn't be removed afaict.

i'll rebase to fix these and to split the changes up into smaller commits. thanks for catching the JSON.parse source text omission!

[peetklecha]

i was going off of the message here which seems pretty unambiguous, but definitely happy to revise if i'm wrong!

[ljharb]

aha, good point on that one, thanks :-) i'll account for it.

[peetklecha]

as for immutable array buffers i see i missed the conditional-ness. sorry about that!

[ljharb]

I wasn't aware @jridgewell was no longer championing "destructuring private fields"; it'd be great to confirm that. The others I'm aware of.

[peetklecha]

I wasn't aware @jridgewell was no longer championing "destructuring private fields"; it'd be great to confirm that. The others I'm aware of.

that is based on what he said at the last stage 2 proposal review:

PKA: So our final item is destructuring private fields.

JRL: I am no longer working on this although DE has a proposal that would assume it entirely.

DE: I have a proposal for how we could handle private name declarations, and this proposal would make it clear that the current destructuring private fields proposal is OK. It makes it clear that the syntax space used in destructuring private fields won't clash with something else. This would then free up the destructure private fields syntax to what JRL proposed before. I would like to come back and present that sketch of this alternative feature. I don’t know if I will have energy to champion the proposal myself, but if folks are convinced about the direction, then we can proceed with what JRL was proposing before. Do you have thoughts on this?

PKA: Um, no that sounds good. That becomes—we just need a Champion to resume as we move forward. But that is a great update. Um, I think unless there is another comments, I think that concludes the review. Thank you everyone.

[peetklecha]

there's a lot going on in this commit, and not all of it is correct.

immutable arraybuffers remain at stage 2.7; Time Zone Canonicalization shouldn't be removed afaict.

i'll rebase to fix these and to split the changes up into smaller commits. thanks for catching the JSON.parse source text omission!

thanks for putting immutable array buffers back, but i also updated the last-presented and added a link to the test plan, do you mind preserving those edits?

[ptomato]

i was going off of the message here which seems pretty unambiguous, but definitely happy to revise if i'm wrong!

Oh yeah then I might be misremembering.

[justingrant]

Y'all move fast! Sorry I wasn't able to comment before this was merged.

i was going off of the message here which seems pretty unambiguous, but definitely happy to revise if i'm wrong!

Oh yeah then I might be misremembering.

Yep, the Time Zone Canonicalization proposal was merged into Temporal and no longer exists independently. Its repo will still be available, right? I wouldn't want links to its content to be broken.

Also, should we put a link to the Time Zone Canonicalization proposal on the Inactive Proposals page? It's still valid content and history, even though it's been merged, so I wouldn't want it to be completely undiscoverable.

Also, @ptomato did we also retire the Test262 tags for that proposal? If not then we shouldn't delete the lines at the end of this PR that remove those tags.

[ljharb]

Yep, the repo should be archived, but must be available forever.

Yes, that's a great idea - a PR to the inactive proposals doc would be appreciated.

[justingrant]

@ljharb What abuot the other proposals changed by this PR? Don't they also belong in inactive proposals?

[ljharb]

No, all of the others remain active.

[justingrant]

a PR to the inactive proposals doc would be appreciated.

#588