Stage 4 PR for proposal-intl-extend-timezonename

[FrankYFTang]

Based on https://tc39.es/proposal-intl-extend-timezonename/

The <del> and some <ins> in the spec text is already in latest ECMA402

pending on Stage 4 Advancement in 2021-Dec TC39

[ryzokuken]

LGTM, a few nits inline.

BTW, the diff at https://tc39.es/proposal-intl-extend-timezonename/ is outdated around FormatDateTimePattern pt 15.e.

[ryzokuken]

nit: are the brackets necessary here?

[FrankYFTang]

I think that make it clearer

[FrankYFTang]

LGTM, a few nits inline.

BTW, the diff at https://tc39.es/proposal-intl-extend-timezonename/ is outdated around FormatDateTimePattern pt 15.e.

I know, I landed dbe5d72#diff-aae61752e383a82db0847140fc85c3f1718f6348407153200b6db8462f10a21a myself. So the diff in this PR is only the diff from the spec text.

[ryzokuken]

@FrankYFTang great, thanks. Consider my questions resolved.

@gibson042 @leobalter do you folks want to take a quick look?

Good luck for Stage 4!

[gibson042]

@FrankYFTang this works, but I would love for the adjustments to be expressed more concisely. What would you think of this?

Suggested change

	1. Else if _property_ is *"timeZoneName"*, then
	1. If _optionsProp_ is *"short"* or *"shortGeneric"*, then
	1. If _formatProp_ is *"shortOffset"*, decrease _score_ by _offsetPenalty_.
	1. Else if _formatProp_ is *"longOffset"*, decrease _score_ by (_offsetPenalty_ + _shortMorePenalty_).
	1. Else if _optionsProp_ is *"short"* and _formatProp_ is *"long"*, decrease _score_ by _shortMorePenalty_.
	1. Else if _optionsProp_ is *"shortGeneric"* and _formatProp_ is *"longGeneric"*, decrease _score_ by _shortMorePenalty_.
	1. Else if _optionsProp_ ≠ _formatProp_, decrease _score_ by _removalPenalty_.
	1. Else if _optionsProp_ is *"shortOffset"* and _formatProp_ is *"longOffset"*, decrease _score_ by _shortMorePenalty_.
	1. Else if _optionsProp_ is *"long"* or *"longGeneric"*, then
	1. If _formatProp_ is *"longOffset"*, decrease _score_ by _offsetPenalty_.
	1. Else if _formatProp_ is *"shortOffset"*, decrease _score_ by (_offsetPenalty_ + _longLessPenalty_).
	1. Else if _optionsProp_ is *"long"* and _formatProp_ is *"short"*, decrease _score_ by _longLessPenalty_.
	1. Else if _optionsProp_ is *"longGeneric"* and _formatProp_ is *"shortGeneric"*, decrease _score_ by _longLessPenalty_.
	1. Else if _optionsProp_ ≠ _formatProp_, decrease _score_ by _removalPenalty_.
	1. Else if _optionsProp_ is *"longOffset"* and _formatProp_ is *"shortOffset"*, decrease _score_ by _longLessPenalty_.
	1. Else if _optionsProp_ ≠ _formatProp_, decrease _score_ by _removalPenalty_.
	1. Else if _property_ is *"timeZoneName"*, then
	1. Let _penalty_ be the value of the column with name matching _formatProp_ in the row of <emu-xref href="#table-timezonename-component-non-default-penalties"></emu-xref> for which the value of the &ldquo;Requested Style&rdquo; column is _optionsProp_. If that cell is empty, let _penalty_ be _removalPenalty_.
	1. If _optionsProp_ = _formatProp_, then
	1. Assert: _penalty_ is 0.
	1. Else,
	1. Decrease _score_ by _penalty_.

<emu-table id="table-timezonename-component-non-default-penalties">
  <emu-caption>*"timeZoneName"* component non-default penalties</emu-caption>

Requested Style	*"short"*	*"long"*	*"shortOffset"*	*"longOffset"*	*"shortGeneric"*	*"longGeneric"*
*"short"*	0	_shortMorePenalty_	_offsetPenalty_	_offsetPenalty_ + _shortMorePenalty_
*"shortGeneric"*			_offsetPenalty_	_offsetPenalty_ + _shortMorePenalty_	0	_shortMorePenalty_
*"shortOffset"*			0	_shortMorePenalty_
*"long"*	_longLessPenalty_	0	_offsetPenalty_ + _longLessPenalty_	_offsetPenalty_
*"longGeneric"*			_offsetPenalty_ + _longLessPenalty_	_offsetPenalty_	_longLessPenalty_	0
*"longOffset"*			_longLessPenalty_	0

[FrankYFTang]

I am nervous about this suggestion. This is a much bigger (pure editorial I assume) changes. How about we merge it w/o such into ECMA402 and then later put that into a different Editorial PR?

[gibson042]

I don't object either way. But for clarity: would you support such a change, or do you prefer the algorithm steps as they are?

[FrankYFTang]

Let me put down this way- I am supporting change it to a table form as an editorial change but I think we need more spend more time and review from more people (in particular @anba) for that PR to make sure we didn't change unintentionally. So I prefer not mix that into this Stage 4 PR.

[ryzokuken]

LGTM. I like the change proposed by @gibson042 but we can do it as an editorial ECMA-402 PR after merging this, as @FrankYFTang proposed.

[ryzokuken]

Since we've hit stage 4 and all editorial issues have been addressed, can we merge this?

[FrankYFTang]

Since we've hit stage 4 and all editorial issues have been addressed, can we merge this?

@ryzokuken Who are you asking this question to? Are you asking @gibson042 ? I do not have merge right since I am not editor so we need someone have merge right to click the button to merge.

[ryzokuken]

@FrankYFTang I have merge access, I just wanted to confirm that this PR is good to go before doing that.

[FrankYFTang]

I just wanted to confirm that this PR is good to go before doing that.

Are you asking @gibson042 ? or are you asking me? or someone else?

[ryzokuken]

@FrankYFTang I was asking both of you what you think. But I believe we're good to go, so since there aren't any objections, I'll merge this.

[FrankYFTang]

thanks