Merged
Conversation
Silkjaer
suggested changes
Jul 7, 2023
Contributor
Silkjaer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add author affiliation and add the name of the XLS to the folder
Silkjaer
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2023
Contributor
Silkjaer
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. I think if it has been decided to go in one direction with the design, maybe the appendixes with alternate options should be removed? For now I think it's fine to keep them, but eventually when moving to spec at least :)
Contributor
|
For future readers: see the current version of XLS-38d here. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Initial commit of XLS-38d spec
Per
CONTRIBUTING.md- this is ready to merge as a draft spec. The spec can continue to be updated with new PRs after this.Prior discussions of this spec can be found here: #92