JavaScript / ECMAScript

[Martin Rinehart]

Within this group many use ECMAScript as the name of the language,
JavaScript as the name of Mozilla's implementation. I see zero support
for this usage outside this group (where JavaScript is the name of
the language and ECMAScript is the title of the standards document).
Can someone clue me in?

And why don't we follow standards and write EcmaScript?

[Martin Honnen]

Martin Rinehart wrote:

Within this group many use ECMAScript as the name of the language,
JavaScript as the name of Mozilla's implementation. I see zero support
for this usage outside this group (where JavaScript is the name of
the language and ECMAScript is the title of the standards document).
Can someone clue me in?

Use what you like, be prepared to be forced to explain the context. As
for usage outside of the group, what about http://www.ecmascript.org/?
That is an outlet for Mozilla and others to drive the development of the
language and its standard.
--

Martin Honnen
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Martin Rinehart <Ma************ @gmail.comwrite s:

Within this group many use ECMAScript as the name of the language,
JavaScript as the name of Mozilla's implementation. I see zero support
for this usage outside this group (where JavaScript is the name of
the language and ECMAScript is the title of the standards document).
Can someone clue me in?

The language was called JavaScript when it was first introduced in
Netscape 2. The language and type attributes on script elements have
always contained the name "javascript ". The name is, de facto,
javascript whenever people talk about it, standard or no standard.

The standard was probably called ECMAScript:
1. to avoid favoring either Mozilla or Microsoft by using JavaScript or
JScript, and
2. to avoid trademark problems with Sun (who owns the trademark on
"JavaScript ").

In this group, it's some times necessary to distinguish between the
language specified by the ECMAScript standard and the language
implemented by a particular ECMAScript compliant language
implementation.
Although not quite as often as some people like to make the point.

And why don't we follow standards and write EcmaScript?

Because that's not it's name? ECMA named it, so they got to pick the
capitalization. They probably have guidelines saying that ECMA should
only be written in all-caps.

And what standards?

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

Martin Rinehart <Ma************ @gmail.comwrite s:

>Within this group many use ECMAScript as the name of the language,
JavaScript as the name of Mozilla's implementation. I see zero support
for this usage outside this group (where JavaScript is the name of
the language and ECMAScript is the title of the standards document).
Can someone clue me in?

In this group, it's some times necessary to distinguish between the
language specified by the ECMAScript standard and the language
implemented by a particular ECMAScript compliant language
implementation.

ACK

Although not quite as often as some people like to make the point.

It remains to be seen to what extent existing implementations differ from
one another and from the standard. The published version of the ECMAScript
Support Matrix currently only covers JavaScript and JScript, and that
incomplete (more is still under construction).

<http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>

>And why don't we follow standards and write EcmaScript?

Because that's not it's name? ECMA named it, so they got to pick the
capitalization. They probably have guidelines saying that ECMA should
only be written in all-caps.

It's vice-versa. It was the ECMA (European Computer Manufacturers
Association) when at least the first edition of the standard was written,
and changed to Ecma International afterwards. The change in name was
because of different membership; the change in case was to emphasize the
"Internatio nal" as compared "European". And, indeed, Ecma International has
a number of internationally operating companies (that are not all computer
manufacturers), as its members.

<http://www.ecma-international.o rg/>
PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f8************ *******@news.de mon.co.uk>

[John G Harris]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 at 23:30:27, in comp.lang.javas cript, Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

>Martin Rinehart <Ma************ @gmail.comwrite s:

<snip>

>>And why don't we follow standards and write EcmaScript?

Because that's not it's name? ECMA named it, so they got to pick the
capitalization . They probably have guidelines saying that ECMA should
only be written in all-caps.

It's vice-versa. It was the ECMA (European Computer Manufacturers
Association) when at least the first edition of the standard was written,
and changed to Ecma International afterwards. The change in name was
because of different membership; the change in case was to emphasize the
"International " as compared "European". And, indeed, Ecma International has
a number of internationally operating companies (that are not all computer
manufacturers) , as its members.

<http://www.ecma-international.o rg/>

The ISO standard writes it as ECMAScript, everywhere. So do ECMA 262 v2
and v3. That's good enough for me.

John
--
John Harris

[RobG]

On Nov 14, 5:27*am, John G Harris <[e-mail] mon.co.ukwrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 at 23:30:27, in comp.lang.javas cript, Thomas

'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:

Martin Rinehart <MartinRineh... @gmail.comwrite s:

* <snip>

>And why don't we follow standards and write EcmaScript?

Because that's not it's name? ECMA named it, so they got to pick the
capitalization. They probably have guidelines saying that ECMA should
only be written in all-caps.

It's vice-versa. *It was the ECMA (European Computer Manufacturers
Association) when at least the first edition of the standard was written,
and changed to Ecma International afterwards. *The change in name was
because of different membership; the change in case was to emphasize the
"Internatio nal" as compared "European". *And, indeed, Ecma International has
a number of internationally operating companies (that are not all computer
manufacturers), as its members.

<http://www.ecma-international.o rg/>

The ISO standard writes it as ECMAScript, everywhere. So do ECMA 262 v2
and v3. That's good enough for me.

Yes, and Ecma International continue to use "ECMA" for their published
standards.

<URL: http://www.ecma-international.org/pu...s/Standard.htm

>

--
Rob