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

[Dr J R Stockton]

REPOST ?

In comp.lang.javas cript message <7X************ **@J.A830F0FF37 FB96852AD0
8924D9443D28E23 ED5CD>, Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:15:04, John G Harris
<jo**@nospam.de mon.co.ukposted :

>On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 14:05:19, in comp.lang.javas cript, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

>If you look at Wikipedia's definition of a javascript 'if' statement
you'll see it's blatantly wrong.

Then you could have corrected it.

Note that one reason for the existence of URLs and anchors was to enable
exact citation of Web pages. I don't propose trying to guess what page
you were reading, or to read all possibilities.

The spelling and capitalisation, in related Wiki pages, of a word like
JavaScript is much more noticeable than an error in writing a simple
statement example.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "" (SonOfRFC1036)

[John G Harris]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 at 17:42:47, in comp.lang.javas cript, Dr J R
Stockton wrote:

>REPOST ?

In comp.lang.javas cript message <7X************ **@J.A830F0FF37 FB96852AD0
8924D9443D28E2 3ED5CD>, Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:15:04, John G Harris
<jo**@nospam.d emon.co.ukposte d:

>>On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 14:05:19, in comp.lang.javas cript, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

>>If you look at Wikipedia's definition of a javascript 'if' statement
you'll see it's blatantly wrong.

Then you could have corrected it.

Note that one reason for the existence of URLs and anchors was to enable
exact citation of Web pages.

Do a Wikipedia search for ECMAScript, then follow the content links for
syntax.

I don't propose trying to guess what page
you were reading, or to read all possibilities.

You'll find yourself on a long, long page that purports to describe the
javascript syntax in detail.

Roughly half the page is wrong. To put it in English, it's a load of
cobblers. The page says that many of the javascript functions shown in
the merlyn website contain flagrant syntax errors.

>The spelling and capitalisation, in related Wiki pages, of a word like
JavaScript

Wikipedia's ECMAScript page starts with this message :

"ECMAScript is a scripting language, standardized by Ecma International
in the ECMA-262 specification. The language is widely used on the web,
and is often erroneously referred to as JavaScript or JScript, after two
major dialects of the specification."

That paragraph is one of the correct ones. Obviously, JavaScript is not
a generic name and is used as such only by the ignorant or prejudiced.

is much more noticeable than an error in writing a simple
statement example.

It's not an example; it's a purported definition, as I said.
John
--
John Harris

[Peter Michaux]

On Oct 6, 7:04*pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@g mail.comwrote:

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

The standard is "ECMAScript ".

The Mozilla implementation is "JavaScript ".

The Microsoft implementation is "JScript".

There should be absolutely no uses of any other capitalization for
these three things in the FAQ. Any other capitalizations would just be
vague and needing their own ad hoc definitions which simply adds to
the confusion. There is no need to add to the confusion as the above
capitalizations sufficiently cover the ground under discussion.

Peter

[Richard Cornford]

On Oct 12, 5:30 pm, Peter Michaux wrote:

On Oct 6, 7:04 pm, dhtml wrote:

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

The standard is "ECMAScript ".

The Mozilla implementation is "JavaScript ".

The Microsoft implementation is "JScript".

There should be absolutely no uses of any other capitalization
for these three things in the FAQ.

I agree with that entirely.

Any other capitalizations would just be vague and needing
their own ad hoc definitions which simply adds to
the confusion. There is no need to add to the confusion
as the above capitalizations sufficiently cover the ground
under discussion.

No they don't. There are more than just those three things to be
discussed. And there should be a term for the generality of ECMAScript
implementations that is the subject of comp.lang.javas cript.

Richard.

[Peter Michaux]

On Oct 13, 3:32*am, Richard Cornford <Richard.Cornf. ..@googlemail.c om>
wrote:

On Oct 12, 5:30 pm, Peter Michaux wrote:

On Oct 6, 7:04 pm, dhtml wrote:

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

The standard is "ECMAScript ".

The Mozilla implementation is "JavaScript ".

The Microsoft implementation is "JScript".

There should be absolutely no uses of any other capitalization
for these three things in the FAQ.

I agree with that entirely.

Any other capitalizations would just be vague and needing
their own ad hoc definitions which simply adds to
the confusion. There is no need to add to the confusion
as the above capitalizations sufficiently cover the ground
under discussion.

No they don't. There are more than just those three things to be
discussed. And there should be a term for the generality of ECMAScript
implementations that is the subject of comp.lang.javas cript.

That term should not be "javascript " as the reader could easily
misinterpret that for a variety of reasons. One situation is when a
single FAQ Topic is posted to the group without the definition of the
"javascript " capitalization.

I think it is better to decide just exactly what it is that needs to
be discussed in precise terms and discuss that.

Peter