[04:44:24] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Maybe we should have converters to/from code for Z89? Just passing back and forward the string value of Z89K1.  Unless we already have somewhere, we should have discussed this much earlier. It would mean we have to rewrite things like Z27852, but they would become much simpler...
[04:45:49] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Would this cause more complications with ambiguously typed lists? (re @u99of9: Maybe we should have converters to/from code for Z89? Just passing back and forward the string value of Z89K1.  Unless we alread...)
[04:58:32] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Maybe it could be a test case for a conversion from code which accepted either a string or an object, as you are exploring in T407932 (re @u99of9: Would this cause more complications with ambiguously typed lists?)
[21:47:34] <wm-bb>	 <Al> Now you mention it, there was never a Type proposal for Z89, was there? 🤔 A proper HTML type would support a tag and an attribute list as well as the text node. The pattern is established by Z33470, although the use of string-lists for attribute values may be sub-optimal. Z11 could follow the example of Z33476 but I think Mahir’s suggestion of an id attribute is worth
[21:47:34] <wm-bb>	 explor <clipped message>
[21:47:35] <wm-bb>	 <Al> ing, even if it generalised to a span reference that is unique only within the scope of the function call. (re @u99of9: Maybe we should have converters to/from code for Z89? Just passing back and forward the string value of Z89K1.  Unless we alread...)
[22:24:49] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> It's <Z10000 so imo it doesn't need one (re @Al: Now you mention it, there was never a Type proposal for Z89, was there? 🤔 A proper HTML type would support a tag and an attribut...)
[22:25:57] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> But anything Z>10000 should be given a type proposal and time for discussion
[22:26:39] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> I also think control should be surrendered to the community
[23:04:21] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> The choice of ZID is a bit of an arbitrary metric. Anything that can be improved by discussion in advance should get discussed in advance, especially if it is hard to change afterwards (as we know Types often are). This particular one has layers of requirements (e.g. sanitisation, and AW integration) that are not so visible to the community, but I'm not convinced that
[23:04:21] <wm-bb>	 these make <clipped message>
[23:04:21] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> discussion less important.
[23:13:59] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> That sounds like a whole new Type. Do you want to write it up? (re @Al: Now you mention it, there was never a Type proposal for Z89, was there? 🤔 A proper HTML type would support a tag and an attribut...)