EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

[dhtml]

I made a change to the FAQ of javascript to EcmaScript.

I got some feedback that the newsgroup is CLJ and the language is
commonly referred to as JavaScript. Therefore, the word in the FAQ
should be JavaScript.

So I'm asking: what should I use in the FAQ?

Technically, 'JavaScript' is Mozilla's implementation of Ecma-262.

So - JavaScript or ECMAScript.

The second question is: where ECMAScript is used, should it be
'ECMAScript' or 'EcmaScript'?

Brendan always calls it "Ecma" and "Ecma TC3". Others do, too.

Technically, 'ECMAScript' is more official, though it's a little easier
to read and type camel case than all-caps.

What do you want in the FAQ: JavaScript, EcmaScript, or ECMAScript?

Garrett

[Conrad Lender]

On 2008-10-07 21:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Conrad Lender wrote:

>Agree about that. JavaScript is what it's generally know as, and the
distinction between the language standard and the names of the various
implementation s is less important than letting people know what we're
talking about.

Non sequitur. Those differences have become one important
reason why we are discussing here in the first place.

I'm getting a little tired of your "non sequitur" remarks, and I'm
beginning to wonder if you even know what it means. We're having
discussions here, we're not engaged in formal logical disputes. But if
you want it formally:

premise A) Most people know this language group only as "JavaScript ".
premise B) Non-experts have no clear idea of what ECMAScript is.
premise C) The FAQ is intended for non-experts.

hypothesis: Letting non-experts know we're talking about what they call
JavaScript is more important than only talking about ECMAScript all the
time.

corollary 1: ... escpecially when _we_ _ourselves_ are so inconsistent
with our use of "JavaScript ".
corollary 2: ... escpecially when the FAQ deals mostly with problems
that are beyond the scope of ECMAScript.
corollary 3: Defining the terms in the FAQ is still a Good Thing.

When you say "non sequitur", you're supposed to state *why* the
hypothesis doesn't follow from the premises. If you fail to prove that,
your "non sequitur" is void (i.e. almost every time you use it). You're
free to argue against any of the premises, just don't claim "non
sequitur" then. I even invite you to tell me why you think that my
reasoning is faulty (as it may well be), I only object to your naming of
logical fallacies as a substitute for an argument.
- Conrad

PS:
I know I shouldn't rise to flamebait like that, but you're overdoing it.

[Dr J R Stockton]

On Oct 7, 8:11*pm, Conrad Lender <crlen...@yahoo .comwrote:

On 2008-10-07 18:35, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

One should be guided firstly by what ISO/IEC 16262 uses internally,
secondarily by what ECMA 262 uses internally,

Is there any difference between the two? I've never bothered with the
ISO specs, because I consider ECMA-262 to be normative, and because ISO
usually charges quite a bit for a copy of their specs.

For the casual reader, IMHO, ISO uses a nicer font. For the
programmer, ISO has has some at least of the ECMA bugs fixed. For the
present purpose, the "auxiliary" text differs between the two, and is
as much a source of guidance as the core text.

thirdly by what Wikipedia uses (because inappropriate notation will
have been changed there); but in the case of single-source products
use what the source uses.

Wikipedia? As useful as it can be at times, I would very much ignore
what Wikipedia has to say about this topic. They're not an authority.

Wikipedia technical articles are usually thoughtfully written and
edited, with discussion. In such matters, they are more likely to be
right than is any one person here, and approximately as likely to be
right as is a consensus here. Therefore they are worth considering,
as a respectable opinion. I would *NOT* have recommended Wikicodia.
Re another article in the thread - It might be well, or polite, to put
in the FAQ a trademark, registered, or similar character against the
first use of certain terms; but only if the marking, registration,
etc., is known to be substantially international in scope.
Off-topic warning : I've noticed a Web-Mailer which, at least in its
display, apparently treats characters < and maybe & as HTML does.
They should of course be sent to the browser as &lt; &gt; &amp;, as is
necessary in my Code Boxes.

Consider the effect of sending, in mail,
"Remember, <!-- starts HTML comment, which is closed by -->."
(I know that's a simplification) or "In an <H2header, ...".

--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Posting with Google.
Mail: J.R.""""""""@ph ysics.org or (better) via Home Page at
Web: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/>
FAQish topics, acronyms, links, etc.; Date, Delphi, JavaScript, ....|

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Conrad Lender wrote:

On 2008-10-07 21:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>Conrad Lender wrote:

>>Agree about that. JavaScript is what it's generally know as, and the
distinction between the language standard and the names of the
various implementations is less important than letting people know
what we're talking about.

Non sequitur. Those differences have become one important reason why
we are discussing here in the first place.

I'm getting a little tired of your "non sequitur" remarks, and I'm
beginning to wonder if you even know what it means.

Yes, I do know what it means.

We're having discussions here, we're not engaged in formal logical
disputes.

If you are making an argument in favor of or against something, it should be
a convincing one or it is a waste of everybody's time. The least criterium
that it has to fulfill to have a chance to be convincing to anyone
reasonable is conclusiveness, i.e. it must not be fallacious. That is not
quibbling about meaning or opinion, it is a requirement for any fruitful
discussion. The Ancients (most notably Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle)
understood that well; you would be wise to follow their teachings.

But if you want it formally:

premise A) Most people know this language group only as "JavaScript ".
premise B) Non-experts have no clear idea of what ECMAScript is.
premise C) The FAQ is intended for non-experts.

Non-experts are supposed to read the FAQ before the post to the newsgroup,
or they are directed to the FAQ after they posted to the newsgroup. In any
case, it is unwise at best to remove terms that are used in the newsgroup
from the FAQ, or use them in an inappropriate way.

hypothesis: Letting non-experts know we're talking about what they call
JavaScript is more important than only talking about ECMAScript all the
time.

Non sequitur: (a colon instead of a dot now, so that you might see the
position of the reasoning better) Nobody said that we should only talk
about ECMAScript. However, calling something JavaScript (in whatever case)
when it is not only JavaScript or may not be a feature in this language
implementation at all, or not calling it ECMAScript when we are referring to
specified behavior, is *wrong*. Again, the differences between them do
matter in code, no matter the coder's experience.

corollary 1: ... escpecially when _we_ _ourselves_ are so inconsistent
with our use of "JavaScript ". corollary 2: ... escpecially when the FAQ
deals mostly with problems that are beyond the scope of ECMAScript.
corollary 3: Defining the terms in the FAQ is still a Good Thing.

When you say "non sequitur", you're supposed to state *why* the
hypothesis doesn't follow from the premises.

I did, in the sentence that followed. You just "overlooked " that and added
another fallacy. Maybe you thought that trimming the relevant quotation
would help that others would overlook that flaw, too.

If you fail to prove that, your "non sequitur" is void (i.e. almost every
time you use it). You're free to argue against any of the premises, just
don't claim "non sequitur" then. I even invite you to tell me why you
think that my reasoning is faulty (as it may well be), I only object to
your naming of logical fallacies as a substitute for an argument.

It is not my problem if you are not only unable to provide a single
conclusive argument in your posting, but also provide at least one
inconclusive argument, repeatedly.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashP ronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M SIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M ac') != -1
) // Plone, register_functi on.js:16

[Conrad Lender]

On 2008-10-07 23:05, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

On Oct 7, 8:11 pm, Conrad Lender <crlen...@yahoo .comwrote:

>>On 2008-10-07 18:35, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

>>>One should be guided firstly by what ISO/IEC 16262 uses internally,
secondaril y by what ECMA 262 uses internally,

Is there any difference between the two? I've never bothered with the
ISO specs, because I consider ECMA-262 to be normative, and because ISO
usually charges quite a bit for a copy of their specs.

For the casual reader, IMHO, ISO uses a nicer font. For the
programmer, ISO has has some at least of the ECMA bugs fixed. For the
present purpose, the "auxiliary" text differs between the two, and is
as much a source of guidance as the core text.

Thank you. Apart from the nicer font, would those "bug fixes" be the
ECMA-262 errata, or did they change the language in any way, to remove
what they considered bugs? And what do the "auxiliary" texts contain? I
still balk at paying CHF 230,- for something that should be free and
open and accessible to all; but I would very much like to know if
they've added anything substantial to the specification.

>Wikipedia? As useful as it can be at times, I would very much ignore
what Wikipedia has to say about this topic. They're not an authority.

Wikipedia technical articles are usually thoughtfully written and
edited, with discussion. In such matters, they are more likely to be
right than is any one person here, and approximately as likely to be
right as is a consensus here. Therefore they are worth considering,
as a respectable opinion.

Good point about the consensus, at least they have a process for such
decisions. And I agree that the technical articles are usually of a
pretty high quality. But the FAQ is specifically for this group, and if
a sort of consensus could be reached here, it would trump the Wiki article.

Talking about the FAQ, I would just like to mention that I think that
Garrett is doing a great job, and putting a lot of effort into it.
Thanks.

I would *NOT* have recommended Wikicodia.

Never even heard of that one. www.wikicodia.org shows something about a
"FaviGame" whatever that is, and www.wikicodia.com is just a squatter?

Off-topic warning : I've noticed a Web-Mailer which, at least in its
display, apparently treats characters < and maybe & as HTML does.
They should of course be sent to the browser as &lt; &gt; &amp;, as is
necessary in my Code Boxes.

Sorry, I lost you there. Was that a remark on the formatting of my post?
I've been using aioe.org since my usual provider has been unreachable
all day. Still it should be all plain-text (I hope).
- Conrad

[Richard Cornford]

Conrad Lender wrote:
On 2008-10-07 19:25, Richard Cornford wrote:

>>Technically , 'ECMAScript' is more official, though it's a
little easier to read and type camel case than all-caps.

Typing ease is hardly an excuse, but use "javascript " (capitalised
if it appears at the beginning of a sentence) and it is likely that
readers will sufficiently understand what is being referred to.

>>What do you want in the FAQ: JavaScript, EcmaScript,
or ECMAScript?

Javascript.

With all due respect, but if "JavaScript " is a trademark, then
"Javascript " is protected as well

Your point being? (Given that I am not proposing not using "JavaScript "
because it is a trademark name but rather using it only to identify the
implementation to which the trademark name belongs.)

<snip>

My point is that it would be unwise to make an important
distinction between JavaScript, Javascript, and javascript,
just based on the capitalization.

<snip>

The distinction (between specific implementations , implementations in
general and the specification that is implemented (and extended by
implementations )) is necessary/useful, and no better alternative has
been suggested. While employing the capitalisation to suggest the
distinction has been employed extensively for a long time, on this group
if perhaps not that widely elsewhere.

That would be extremely confusing, especially for
newcomers.

No it would not. Newcomers don't tend to appreciate the distinction at
all and so would read "javascript " as having exactly the same meaning as
"JavaScript ", so using the former cannot increase confusion. Later,
understanding more, re-reading would reveal only increased meaning. The
difference between not making a distinction and not seeing a distinction
is negligible, but making the distinction allows for the possibility
that the distinction will be seen.

Writing it all-lowercase, as you suggested, would not help
the situation -

Except that it already does.

all languages that I can think of are proper nouns and
written with capital initial letters; making "javascript " the
only exception would only cause more confusion.

How?

Like it or not, JavaScript has become a pars pro toto expression;
in technical discussions we will keep the distinction between
standard and implementations , but in practical usage (and even
in this group) "JavaScript " is almost generally used as "all
languages/implementations derived from ECMAScript" (there are
a few exceptions, such as "ActionScript") .

That is certainly not true of this group.

One way to make the distinction clearer in the FAQ would be to
use JavaScript® and JScript® for trademarked names.

It would be problematic to use the symbols given the simulations
delivery of the content (derived from an XML source) as HTML and plain
text (though not insurmountable) .

At the very least the FAQ could (should) mention which names
are trademarked.

I don't see that as adding anything useful, given that it already states
what JavaScript, JScript and ECMAScript are.

Richard.

[Richard Cornford]

Conrad Lender wrote:

On 2008-10-07 23:05, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

<snip

>For the casual reader, IMHO, ISO uses a nicer font.
For the programmer, ISO has has some at least of the ECMA
bugs fixed. For the present purpose, the "auxiliary" text
differs between the two, and is as much a source of guidance
as the core text.

Thank you. Apart from the nicer font, would those "bug fixes"
be the ECMA-262 errata, or did they change the language in any
way, to remove what they considered bugs?

One of the - for - statement algorithms in ECMA 262 3rd Ed. is obviously
wrong (section 12.6.3, second algorithm, step 7 (should go to step 17
instead of 14)). That has been corrected in the ISO version, but the
original was sufficiently obviously wrong that it was never implemented
in that way so the correction fixes a bug in the original specification
and nothing else. Apart form that the ISO version has a few minor
modifications to a very few algorithms along the lines of splitting a
single step up into 2 where previously two actions were specified in the
single step.

And what do the "auxiliary" texts contain? I still balk at
paying CHF 230,- for something that should be free and
open and accessible to all;

Ironically the print/binding quality of ISO specifications is very poor,
so if you are going to pay form one get it in electronic form and print
your own, then you will be able to print another when the first falls
apart.

but I would very much like to know if
they've added anything substantial to the specification.

<snip>

Nothing.

Richard.

[John W Kennedy]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

criterium

That's "criterion" . It's Greek, not Latin.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins

[Conrad Lender]

On 2008-10-08 01:55, Richard Cornford wrote:

Conrad Lender wrote:

>With all due respect, but if "JavaScript " is a trademark, then
"Javascript " is protected as well

Your point being? (Given that I am not proposing not using "JavaScript "
because it is a trademark name but rather using it only to identify the
implementation to which the trademark name belongs.)

I'm sorry, I may have misread you. I thought you were proposing
"javascript " (which of course is also trademark protected) as an
umbrella for this group of languages.

Legalities aside, I _personally_ have no objections against using (any
spelling of) JavaScript to refer to the group of implementations that
the FAQ readers are dealing with every day. Yes, it's ambiguous, because
"JavaScript " also refers to a specific implementation, as we know, but
that's the way that it's (incorrectly, or rather imprecisely) come to be
used, and it's too late for the pebbles to vote about that. The _FAQ_
can be more specific in some areas, like for instance when it says:

| EcmaScript numbers are represented in binary as IEEE-754 (IEC 559)
| Doubles, with a resolution of 53 bits [...]

Perfect use of EcmaScript here (except that I'd rather have it spelled
ECMAScript). On the other hand, there are topics like:

| How can I see in JavaScript if a web browser accepts cookies?

How should that be spelled then? "ECMAScript " doesn't apply,
"JavaScript " would (as you say) be too specific, so we use "javascript "?

[..]

>Writing it all-lowercase, as you suggested, would not help
the situation -

Except that it already does.

>all languages that I can think of are proper nouns and
written with capital initial letters; making "javascript " the
only exception would only cause more confusion.

How?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of another programming language
that's spelled all lowercase, where that way of spelling isn't just a
gimmick but an important distinction from a term with a different
meaning. The only related example that occurs to me is
"Only perl can parse Perl"
where the former is the interpreter, and the latter is the language. But
that was intended as more tongue in cheek that serious, and is partly
directed against people who would spell the language PERL.

In any case, distinctions based on capitalization are (IMO) just asking
for trouble.

[..]

>At the very least the FAQ could (should) mention which names
are trademarked.

I don't see that as adding anything useful, given that it already states
what JavaScript, JScript and ECMAScript are.

Actually, I'm not sure that it does. I admit, I've never read it
top-to-bottom, but by plain searching I couldn't find a definition of
JavaScript in the clj FAQ. Funny that :)

....still think it would be worth at least a footnote to say who owns the
respective trademarks on those terms. But you're right, it's not that
important.
- Conrad

[dhtml]

Richard Cornford wrote:

On Oct 7, 3:04 am, dhtml wrote:

>I made a change to the FAQ of javascript to EcmaScript.

And how is that supposed to help?

>I got some feedback that the newsgroup is CLJ and the
language is commonly referred to as JavaScript. Therefore,
the word in the FAQ should be JavaScript.

Absolutely not. It is necessarily to be able to differentiate between
the ECMAScript implementation that has a name with that trademark
capitalisation and the general category of ECMAScript implementations .

That's why I made the change. It sounds like you opine that by not
camel-casing, the distinction will be clear that "javascript " is a
non-proper noun, used in the general sense, and "JavaScript " means
Mozilla's implementation. Is this what you meant?

As the latter is called "javascript " (with or without capitalisation)
but the former is named "JavaScript " (with the specific
capitalisation) it makes most sense to differentiate between the two
by employing alternative capitalisation. This has been discussed
before (and at length) and the wording employed in the FAQ represented
the consensus at the time.

I don't know that the latter (EMCAScript in general) is more commonly
written "javascript " than "JavaScript ". It's not pronounced any
differently. I think at work, it's always called "JavaScript ". I never
had anybody ask me if I "Checked that ecmascript file in?" From what I
notice, it's written capitalized and camel cased.

>So I'm asking: what should I use in the FAQ?

No.

What do you mean "No"?

>

>Technically, 'JavaScript' is Mozilla's implementation of
Ecma-262.

And a Trademark name, as is "JScript".

>So - JavaScript or ECMAScript.

Neither.

>The second question is: where ECMAScript is used, should it be
'ECMAScript' or 'EcmaScript'?

ECMAScript.

>Brendan always calls it "Ecma" and "Ecma TC3". Others do, too.

Always? URL (or any evidence substantiating that claim)?

I can't find any more links at the moment.

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/e...st/006837.html
http://ajaxian.com/archives/brendan-...ure-of-the-web

>Technically, 'ECMAScript' is more official, though it's a
little easier to read and type camel case than all-caps.

Typing ease is hardly an excuse, but use "javascript " (capitalised if
it appears at the beginning of a sentence) and it is likely that
readers will sufficiently understand what is being referred to.

It's still easier to read.

>

>What do you want in the FAQ: JavaScript, EcmaScript,
or ECMAScript?

Javascript.

There still is not a strong consensus on what should be used throughout.

"EcmaScript " should be changed to "ECMAScript ", if used.

>
Richard.

[dhtml]

Conrad Lender wrote:

On 2008-10-07 21:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>Conrad Lender wrote:

>>Agree about that. JavaScript is what it's generally know as, and the
distinction between the language standard and the names of the various
implementatio ns is less important than letting people know what we're
talking about.

>
premise A) Most people know this language group only as "JavaScript ".
premise B) Non-experts have no clear idea of what ECMAScript is.
premise C) The FAQ is intended for non-experts.

hypothesis: Letting non-experts know we're talking about what they call
JavaScript is more important than only talking about ECMAScript all the
time.

corollary 1: ... escpecially when _we_ _ourselves_ are so inconsistent
with our use of "JavaScript ".
corollary 2: ... escpecially when the FAQ deals mostly with problems
that are beyond the scope of ECMAScript.
corollary 3: Defining the terms in the FAQ is still a Good Thing.

It might be useful to have an explanation for JavaScript meaning one of
two things:
1) Loosely, ECMAScript and browser scripting
2) Mozilla's implementation of ECMAScript

>

- Conrad