{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tc39/ecma402/issues/231","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tc39/ecma402","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tc39/ecma402/issues/231/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tc39/ecma402/issues/231/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tc39/ecma402/issues/231/events","html_url":"https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/issues/231","id":317797350,"number":231,"title":"Handling unexpected ICU field IDs","user":{"login":"littledan","id":189835,"avatar_url":"https://avatars3.githubusercontent.com/u/189835?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/littledan","html_url":"https://github.com/littledan","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/littledan/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/littledan/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/littledan/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/littledan/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/littledan/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/littledan/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/littledan/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/littledan/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/littledan/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2018-04-25T21:17:34Z","updated_at":"2018-05-07T19:52:37Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"OWNER","body":"I recently learned that ICU users are supposed to be able to handle unexpected values from iterating over fields. Many ECMA-402 implementations are on top of ICU. I can see a few ways to handle this case:\r\n1. Crash with an assertion failure (V8's strategy, apparently incorrect)\r\n1. Leave out that range in formatToParts (but, this risks not actually presenting the whole string)\r\n1. Choose another string for the type\r\n\r\nChoice 3 seems the best to me, especially since these assertion failures [are starting to come up in practice](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=826549). Is `\"literal\"` is the type we want there? Or should we somehow permit a new type, such as `\"unknown\"`, for these cases?"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tc39/ecma402/issues/comments/387182724","html_url":"https://github.com/tc39/ecma402/issues/231#issuecomment-387182724","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/tc39/ecma402/issues/231","id":387182724,"user":{"login":"jungshik","id":8578343,"avatar_url":"https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/8578343?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jungshik","html_url":"https://github.com/jungshik","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jungshik/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jungshik/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jungshik/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jungshik/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jungshik/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jungshik/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jungshik/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jungshik/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jungshik/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-05-07T19:52:37Z","updated_at":"2018-05-07T19:52:37Z","author_association":"NONE","body":"Thank you, @littledan , for filing this issue.  I've been thinking along the line of the 3rd choice as well. Perhaps, 'unknown' ?   "}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"jungshik"}}