Table 16 used to be titled "Additional Components of Function Environment Records", but then rev31 changed "Components" to "Fields" and added double-square-brackets to the field names. Similarly for Global Environment Records in Table 18.
These changes strongly suggest that Function+Global Environment Records are now Records. (Although this seems obvious from the names, it was clearly *not* the case before rev31.) However, if that's the case:
(1) The tables' header row should say "Field Name" rather than "Component". And for consistency with other such tables (8, 21, 25, 36, ...), "Purpose" should be "Meaning", and there should be a middle column labelled "Value" or "Value Type".
(2) You should actually *say* that these things are Records in the sense of 6.2.1.
(3) You should maybe say how their bindings are represented in a Record.
(4) You should maybe say that all Environment Records are Records?
Fixed in rev33 editor's draft
covered 1,2, 4.
3 is a separable issue. We intentionally haven't described our bindings are represented. It might be clearer to formalize in terms of lists and records. But probably not a high priority of ES6 release. It may be worthwhile creating a separate ticket for addressing this in the future. Note there is a siilar issue relating to ordinary objects. We don't really have a formalization of an object's property store.
Okay, I've pulled out (3) as Bug 3812.
fixed in rev33