From 059b864678f00d300597581d5821624e49b9bbae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tab Atkins Jr Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 10:48:50 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Clarify PoC 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. --- terminology.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/terminology.md b/terminology.md index 5285ce3..2521336 100644 --- a/terminology.md +++ b/terminology.md @@ -496,12 +496,14 @@ Some real-world examples: The idea that when differing perspectives come into conflict, our decisions ought to prioritize them in the following (descending) order: -1. End users +1. End users (tool and website users) 2. JavaScript authors 3. JavaScript engine implementers 4. ECMAScript specification authors 5. Theoretical purity +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. + While this is not an explicitly adopted goal of TC39, it is a common standards concept which delegates often refer to. ### References