By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,847 Members | 3,231 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,847 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

P: n/a
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
Oct 7 '08 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
34 Replies


P: n/a
On Oct 7, 12:04*pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
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?
The term ECMAScript should be used whenever referring to the
underlying language because that is an easily recognisable part of its
official name. EcmaScript is a bit "skript-kiddy" to me, even if it's
been adopted by its inventor.

JavaScript (capitalised) should be used only when referring
specifically to Netscape’s implementation of ECMAScript in their
browser. The Mozilla web site states that SpiderMonkey “Mozilla's C
implementation of JavaScript” and Rhino is their Java implementation.
It’s worth noting that Sun owns the JavaScript trademark, though
whether that is important or not is moot.

It is my understanding that the term javascript (no capitalisation) is
generally used to mean ECMAScript as implemented in a browser and
includes all the other host environment stuff as well (e.g. W3C DOM
and proprietary bits). If a comment refers to a specific
implementation, it should mention it by name (JScript, SpiderMonkey,
SquirrelFish and so on).

It is important that the FAQ points out the difference between
ECMAScript and its implementation in different environments.
--
Rob
Oct 7 '08 #2

P: n/a
dhtml <dh**********@gmail.comwrites:
What do you want in the FAQ: JavaScript, EcmaScript, or ECMAScript?
Personally, I use "Javascript" about the collection of languages that
are ECMAScript compatible (anything that triggers off the (unofficial)
MIME type "text/javascript").
This includes JavaScript(TM), JScript(TM) and other unnamed
implementations (e.g., in Opera, Safari, Chrome, etc.).

It's no more incorrect than any of the other :)
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Oct 7 '08 #3

P: n/a
On Oct 7, 7:03*am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <lrn.unr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrites:
What do you want in the FAQ: JavaScript, EcmaScript, or ECMAScript?

Personally, I use "Javascript" about the collection of languages that
are ECMAScript compatible (anything that triggers off the (unofficial)
MIME type "text/javascript").
This includes JavaScript(TM), JScript(TM) and other unnamed
implementations (e.g., in Opera, Safari, Chrome, etc.).
Safari's JS interpreter is called, properly enough, JavaScriptCore.
It's no more incorrect than any of the other :)
You're not alone, most books are titled [something]+"JavaScript"+
[something]: i.e. "javascript: The good parts", not "ECMAScript: The
good parts" :-)

--
Jorge.
Oct 7 '08 #4

P: n/a
On Oct 7, 8:19*am, Jorge <jo...@jorgechamorro.comwrote:
On Oct 7, 7:03*am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <lrn.unr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrites:
What do you want in the FAQ: JavaScript, EcmaScript, or ECMAScript?
Personally, I use "Javascript" about the collection of languages that
are ECMAScript compatible (anything that triggers off the (unofficial)
MIME type "text/javascript").
This includes JavaScript(TM), JScript(TM) and other unnamed
implementations (e.g., in Opera, Safari, Chrome, etc.).

Safari's JS interpreter is called, properly enough, JavaScriptCore.
It's no more incorrect than any of the other :)

You're not alone, most books are titled [something]+"JavaScript"+
[something]: i.e. "javascript: The good parts", not "ECMAScript: The
good parts" *:-)
One should be guided firstly by what ISO/IEC 16262 uses internally,
secondarily by what ECMA 262 uses internally, 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.

That means ECMAScript, JavaScript, JScript.

Since the language is so widely known as JavaScript, and the newsgroup
is CLJ, the general name used in the FAQ should be JavaScript rather
than ECMAScript. Remember that the FAQ is intended to be read by
ordinary people.

Remember also that one should, in principle, not code in full
ECMAScript. Instead, one should code in that subset of ECMAScript
which one believes to be properly supported in all target executing
agents. That means, for example, not using toFixed if certain
arguments are possible. Better, then, not to use ECMAScript except
when referring to the standard.

Intranet authors can code in a superset of that subset, adding the use
of non-ECMA features supported on all relevant systems.

One might argue for using JavaScript for what is compliant with the
standards, and Javascript or javascript more generally. But it would
be difficult to sustain that reliable, and readers would not remember
the significance.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London, UK. Posting with Google.
Mail: J.R.""""""""@physics.org or (better) via Home Page at
Web: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/>
FAQish topics, acronyms, links, etc.; Date, Delphi, JavaScript, ....|
Oct 7 '08 #5

P: n/a
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.
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.
So I'm asking: what should I use in the FAQ?
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)?
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.

Richard.
Oct 7 '08 #6

P: n/a
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.
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.
Since the language is so widely known as JavaScript, and the newsgroup
is CLJ, the general name used in the FAQ should be JavaScript rather
than ECMAScript. Remember that the FAQ is intended to be read by
ordinary people.
...
Better, then, not to use ECMAScript except when referring to the
standard.
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. The FAQ should explain the definitions (it does so
already, in part), and why "JavaScript" is used in the rest of the document.

Also, the MIME type is usually stated as "text/javascript", not
"text/ecmascript" or "text/name-of-implementation-script".
- Conrad
Oct 7 '08 #7

P: n/a
Conrad Lender wrote:
On 2008-10-07 18:35, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>[...]
Better, then, not to use ECMAScript except when referring to the
standard.

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.

<http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix/(new revision still construction)
PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
Oct 7 '08 #8

P: n/a
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 (just like "ipod" is protected,
although the trademark is "iPod"). The trademarked spelling is camel
cased, but legally that does not give anybody the right to use the
"Javascript" spelling freely without infringing on the trademark. If
"Javascript" has become sufficiently widely used, and _not_ only in
connection with the trademarked implementation, then the trademark could
(if anybody cared enough) be voided, as it will no longer be unique
enough, and hence unenforcable.

Disclaimer: I've been working with patent attorneys for the last 5+
years, and while this definitely does not make me an expert in any way,
it did give me a pretty good general idea about the legal situation.

My point is that it would be unwise to make an important distinction
between JavaScript, Javascript, and javascript, just based on the
capitalization. That would be extremely confusing, especially for
newcomers. Writing it all-lowercase, as you suggested, would not help
the situation - 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.

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").

One way to make the distinction clearer in the FAQ would be to use
JavaScript® and JScript® for trademarked names. At the very least the
FAQ could (should) mention which names are trademarked.
- Conrad
Oct 7 '08 #9

P: n/a
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 09:35:04, in comp.lang.javascript, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

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

That means ECMAScript, JavaScript, JScript.

Since the language is so widely known as JavaScript, and the newsgroup
is CLJ, the general name used in the FAQ should be JavaScript rather
than ECMAScript. Remember that the FAQ is intended to be read by
ordinary people.
<snip>

"JavaScript" with a capital J and capital S was a registered trademark
owned by Netscape when it was an independent company. It's likely that
it's still a trademark owned by some legal entity.

The ECMAScript standard defines the core language, though it allows and
expects a conforming implementation to provide further objects,
functions, etc.

Using "JavaScript" may need permission and can't be used when talking
about IE, by definition. Using "ECMAScript" implies you're restricting
your remarks to the core language. I claim that "javascript" is the most
suitable spelling when talking generally, with a capital J used only
when it's the first word in a sentence.

John
--
John Harris
Oct 7 '08 #10

P: n/a
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. 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.
Oct 7 '08 #11

P: n/a
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.""""""""@physics.org or (better) via Home Page at
Web: <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/>
FAQish topics, acronyms, links, etc.; Date, Delphi, JavaScript, ....|
Oct 7 '08 #12

P: n/a
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 bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
Oct 7 '08 #13

P: n/a
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,
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.
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
Oct 7 '08 #14

P: n/a
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.

Oct 8 '08 #15

P: n/a
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.

Oct 8 '08 #16

P: n/a
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
Oct 8 '08 #17

P: n/a
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
Oct 8 '08 #18

P: n/a
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.
Oct 8 '08 #19

P: n/a
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.
>
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
Oct 8 '08 #20

P: n/a
On Oct 8, 12:46*pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:04 am, dhtml wrote:
[...]
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.
I think the consensus is pretty strong that ECMAScript should only be
used when referring specifically to the standard, otherwise use
javascript (or Javascript at the begining of sentences). When
referring to specific implementations, make it clear such as
"Mozilla's JavaScript" or "Opera's JavasScript" so there is no doubt.

Including the name of the implementation itself is probably only
useful for JScript.

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

FAQ 2.5 does a reasonable job of describing ECMAScript and ECMA 262
(though I would move the link to the PDF to the bottom of the entry).
Why not use ECMA-262 to make it clear that the reference is to the
specification and not the language in general? It should also be
possible to link to FAQ 2.5 wherever ECMA-262 is used.

e.g. FAQ 4.2 could read:

"ECMA-262 specifies that numbers are represented..."
--
Rob
Oct 8 '08 #21

P: n/a
RobG wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:46 pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.comwrote:
>Richard Cornford wrote:
>>On Oct 7, 3:04 am, dhtml wrote:
[...]
>>>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.

I think the consensus is pretty strong that ECMAScript should only be
used when referring specifically to the standard, otherwise use
javascript (or Javascript at the begining of sentences). When
referring to specific implementations, make it clear such as
"Mozilla's JavaScript" or "Opera's JavasScript" so there is no doubt.

Including the name of the implementation itself is probably only
useful for JScript.

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

Yes.
OK.
>
FAQ 2.5 does a reasonable job of describing ECMAScript and ECMA 262
(though I would move the link to the PDF to the bottom of the entry).
Why not use ECMA-262 to make it clear that the reference is to the
specification and not the language in general? It should also be
possible to link to FAQ 2.5 wherever ECMA-262 is used.
OK. There's a definition of what JScript and JavaScript are (camel
cased), but then using javascript (LC) throughout. If javascript is
going to be used as such, there should be at least a sentence that
explains it.

I still think that there are cases where it's useful to differentiate
between the two. Specifically, when talking about the language itself.
For example:-

| Object models (OMs) are not part of the ECMAScript language: they
| are provided by the host to allow ECMAScript (or other scripting
| language) to communicate with the host. An object model may allow
| ECMAScript to access a file system, or control a nuclear power
| station. The most commonly used object models via ECMAScript are
| provided by Active Server Pages, Server Side JavaScript, and the
| Windows Script Host. The most common of all is the
| Document Object Model (DOM) provided by web browsers. Other
| document types such as SVG also define scriptable DOMs, mostly as
| extensions of the W3C Core DOM specification designed for use
| with XML documents.
By using ECMAScript (and not "javascript" in the above, it's clear that
we're not talking about "Client Side JavaScript," especially considering
that there is mention of "server side JavaScript" there.
Garrett
e.g. FAQ 4.2 could read:

"ECMA-262 specifies that numbers are represented..."
--
Rob
Oct 8 '08 #22

P: n/a
John W Kennedy wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>criterium

That's "criterion". It's Greek, not Latin.
Thanks, I knew that once.
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.demon.co.uk>
Oct 8 '08 #23

P: n/a
Conrad Lender wrote:
Disclaimer: I've been working with patent attorneys for the last 5+
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
years, and while this definitely does not make me an expert in any way,
^^^^^
it did give me a pretty good general idea about the legal situation.
[...]
My point is that it would be unwise to make an important distinction
between JavaScript, Javascript, and javascript, just based on the
capitalization. That would be extremely confusing, especially for
newcomers. Writing it all-lowercase, as you suggested, would not help
the situation - 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.
ACK.
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").
By whom?
One way to make the distinction clearer in the FAQ would be to use
JavaScript® and JScript® for trademarked names.
That would be wrong, because a trademark is not necessarily a Registered
Trademark (registered with the USPTO). (You of all people should know this,
no?)

(tm)/[tm] or its Unicode version would technically be OK, however I doubt
that the FAQ would become better legible or understandable through this.
"ECMAScript" and "ECMAScript implementation" are technically correct when
referring to specified (and implemented) features, and does not cause any
difficulties for the reader -- the issue aside that the reader would have to
and want to understand what ECMAScript and ECMAScript implementations are,
which would be a Good Thing.
At the very least the FAQ could (should) mention which names are trademarked.
ACK. That should be done (using one of the aforementioned markings) in the
FAQ section that already explains (shortly) what JavaScript and JScript are.
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.demon.co.uk>
Oct 8 '08 #24

P: n/a
On 2008-10-08 12:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>One way to make the distinction clearer in the FAQ would be to use
JavaScript® and JScript® for trademarked names.
That would be wrong, because a trademark is not necessarily a
Registered Trademark (registered with the USPTO). (You of all people
should know this, no?)
Yes I do, and it would be correct, because:
* JavaScript is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, and
* JScript is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.

http://www.uspto.gov/main/search.html
(tm)/[tm] or its Unicode version would technically be OK, however I
doubt that the FAQ would become better legible or understandable
through this.
I wouldn't like it much either, and I'm not proposing to use any of the
trademark signs in the FAQ. I was only mentioning a possibility.
- Conrad
Oct 8 '08 #25

P: n/a
Conrad Lender wrote:
On 2008-10-08 12:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>One way to make the distinction clearer in the FAQ would be to use
JavaScript® and JScript® for trademarked names.
That would be wrong, because a trademark is not necessarily a
Registered Trademark (registered with the USPTO). (You of all people
should know this, no?)

Yes I do, and it would be correct, because:
* JavaScript is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, and
* JScript is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.

http://www.uspto.gov/main/search.html
I did not check with USPTO before, just replied from memory. I wonder,
though, why the (TM) variant is more common than the (R) variant -- did
all those people get it wrong?
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
Oct 8 '08 #26

P: n/a
On Oct 8, 2:17 am, Conrad Lender wrote:
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.
Using (or rather continuing to use) "javascript" as umbrella term for
all ECMAScript implementations is precisely what I am proposing.
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.
So no objections to using an all lowercase version.
Yes, it's ambiguous, because "JavaScript" also refers to a
specific implementation, as we know,
So we reduce the ambiguity by not using that formulation except when
talking of the specific implementation.
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 generality of how "JavaScript" has come to be used is irrelevant
to a discussion of changing the way it is used in the group's FAQ. The
distinction was manifest in previous versions and employed following
debate on the subject and a reasonable consensus being reached. The
subject here is should the usage be changed in the FAQ, and if so how.
It should not be changed (making how it would be changed academic).
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 [...]
That may be precisely the sort of context where "javascript" would be
the appropriate label, as the use of IEEE double precision floating
point numbers is common to all implementations, and remembering that
novices likely have no idea what ECMAScript is and probably won't
fully comprehend it on first encountering its use in the FAQ.
Perfect use of EcmaScript here (except that I'd rather have it
spelled ECMAScript).
I disagree. I think the use of ECMAScript here is getting in the way
of providing a "quick answer", which is what that entry is supposed to
be doing.
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?
"javascript"
>"ECMAScript" doesn't apply, "JavaScript" would (as you say) be
too specific, so we use "javascript"?
Yes, it is not that difficult to do.

<snip>
In any case, distinctions based on capitalization are (IMO)
just asking for trouble.
I don't see that. The worst outcome is that a distinction between
"javascript" and "JavaScript" is not observed by the reader, but if
only "JavaScript" were used (or the two used inconsistently) then the
distinction would not be exist and so could not be observed. That
means the worst outcome is not very bad at all, and certainly not
likely to increase '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 :)
Yes, in the case of JavaScript there is only the implication, and
maybe the FAQ should be more explicit on that particular
implementation.
...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.
Maybe, but it would have to be very short.

Richard.
Oct 8 '08 #27

P: n/a
In comp.lang.javascript message <gc**********@aioe.org>, Wed, 8 Oct 2008
00:05:58, Conrad Lender <cr******@yahoo.composted:
>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,
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.

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?
There is at least one change that I don't think is in the errata. It
does not affect the meaning. I've not done the full comparison of 262 +
errata with 16262, but TL should have memorised all three.
And what do the "auxiliary" texts contain?
Things about the document; but correctly spelt, which is what matters
here.
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.
Then read it. In their great benevolence, ISO apparently give you three
options : the standard on paper, many CHF; the standard as PDF, many CHF
(?); the standard as PDF (zip), FOC. If you had read through my site,
you would have discovered that. If you had read through the current
FAQ, you would have discovered that. You must realise that I look into
16262 frequently; I'm at least as mean as you, and would not have paid
for it!

>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?
It was advertised here last year. It was a Wiki-style programming site,
dominated by a group of oriental-sounding gentlemen who no doubt thought
that they were wily. In fact, they were singularly incompetent - they
knew almost as much about good programming as Thomas Lahn doesn't. But
they had better manners, though worse English. After about 12 months
(~20080519) the original site vanished; soon after (<=20080720),
something like you describe appeared there.

>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).
Note : "off-topic warning". Some mails to me go that way, before being
collected by POP3 to Turnpike, where that are displayed properly. The
effect on a discussion of the FAQ can be striking. But thanks for
writing "aioe"; I'd been trying to remember that string.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

Usenet News services are currently unreliable; I may not see all articles here.
Oct 8 '08 #28

P: n/a
On 2008-10-08 15:28, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>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.

Then read it. In their great benevolence, ISO apparently give you three
options : the standard on paper, many CHF; the standard as PDF, many CHF
(?); the standard as PDF (zip), FOC. If you had read through my site,
you would have discovered that. If you had read through the current
FAQ, you would have discovered that. You must realise that I look into
16262 frequently; I'm at least as mean as you, and would not have paid
for it!
Thanks, I must have missed that download link. I had simply assumed
(from previous attempts to download standards documents there) that they
would rather burn the specs than let anybody get them for free.

| You are downloading a single-user licence to store this file on your
| personal computer. [...] You may print out and retain one-only printed
| copy of the PDF file.

And then I have to destroy the PDF and download a fresh one, or what?
Weird disclaimers and font preferences aside, this is actually a useful
document; it already has the errata from ECMA-262 integrated, which will
come in handy when I'm writing my own engine (jk). Apart from that, I
didn't see any obvious changes or additions (I did not compare all 180+
pages in detail).
- Conrad
Oct 8 '08 #29

P: n/a
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 14:05:19, in comp.lang.javascript, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

<snip>
>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.
<snip>

If you look at Wikipedia's definition of a javascript 'if' statement
you'll see it's blatantly wrong. Why would anyone trust the rest of the
javascript articles ?

John
--
John Harris
Oct 9 '08 #30

P: n/a
REPOST ?

In comp.lang.javascript message <7X**************@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD0
8924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:15:04, John G Harris
<jo**@nospam.demon.co.ukposted:
>On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 14:05:19, in comp.lang.javascript, 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.demon.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)
Oct 11 '08 #31

P: n/a
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 at 17:42:47, in comp.lang.javascript, Dr J R
Stockton wrote:
>REPOST ?

In comp.lang.javascript message <7X**************@J.A830F0FF37FB96852AD0
8924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:15:04, John G Harris
<jo**@nospam.demon.co.ukposted:
>>On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 14:05:19, in comp.lang.javascript, 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
Oct 12 '08 #32

P: n/a
On Oct 6, 7:04*pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.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
Oct 12 '08 #33

P: n/a
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.javascript.

Richard.
Oct 13 '08 #34

P: n/a
On Oct 13, 3:32*am, Richard Cornford <Richard.Cornf...@googlemail.com>
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.javascript.
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
Oct 13 '08 #35

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.