EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

[dhtml]

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

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

That's "criterion". It's Greek, not Latin.

Thanks, I knew that once.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

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

 

[Richard Cornford]

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.

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'.

[..]

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.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

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!

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.

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.

 

[John G Harris]

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

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

REPOST ?

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
8924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:15:04, John G Harris

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.

 

[John G Harris]

REPOST ?

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
8924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:15:04, John G Harris



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

 

[Peter Michaux]

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

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
8924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:04:47, John G Harris

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

To be sure that the correct page is found, give the URL. Your route
description leads to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript_syntax>,
which does not match your description.

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.

Then correct it.

The page says that many of the javascript functions shown in
the merlyn website contain flagrant syntax errors.

That page makes no mention of the merlyn site. If you know of any
actual errors on the Merlyn site, please let me know (in proper detail)
in order that they may be fixed.

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.

The name ECMAScript is only appropriate for implementations which are
compliant, except perhaps for minor bugs.

There is a practical need for a name which describes the languages
executes in Web browsers for <script type-"text/javascript">, in WSH
using *.js files, and similar situations.

For a normal FAQ, general-purpose book, newsgroup, etc., it is important
that terminology is compatible with readers' needs. Excessive pedantry
is counterproductive. Using "JavaScript" is appropriate.

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

Do you mean the code in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript_syntax#
If_..._else>? If so, after reading 16262 7.1.4, I see nothing wrong.
And it matches my small Flanagan.

Perhaps you had better not start editing Wikipedia articles after all.
Instead, write in their Discussions; if others consider you have made a
useful point, the Article will get edited.




That Wiki page does, at this instant, have an error - due to Garrett!
.... Fx: typing ... fixed, by changing FAQ 4.7 & 4.6 references to 4.2 &
4.1. Once re-ordering is completed, there should be a search of Wiki
for FAQ references to be corrected. For that, "javascript FAQ"
site:wikipedia.org seems suitable. I've fixed the French page,
but cannot display <http://en.mobile.wikipedia.org/transcode.php?go=Java
Script%20syntax&PHPSESSID=36c1d3b92f8bf21fb7b13cfd4150541d> - any HAWHAW
experts around?

 

[Richard Cornford]

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.

 

[Peter Michaux]

I agree with that entirely.


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