Augmenting ECMA-262 specs: crazy idea?

[optimistx]

Regulars of this group have done valuable work to build FAQ.
FAQ is supposed to be correct and easy to understand material.
Is there anything, which is even more correct, more complete,
and easy to learn?

Many discussions here end up referring to ECMA-262, which
obviously should be the final truth (with errata-sheet included).

Why not add examples, clarifications, images, opinions, recommendations,
discussions directly to ECMA-262 and make it our Holy Bible
in practice, fun to study and discuss?

Copyright issues? No problem!

???

With bookmarklets (favelets). The user loads the html-version
of ECMA-262 to his/her machine, clicks a bookmarklet (one or
several) , which adds the
extra material from any servers as js-files to the user machine, merging
it to any locations in ECMA-262, in different colors, e.g. blue.

Copyright is respected, because the final user in his/her computer
makes the modificitions, nobody else.

The process could be started immediately by any person or group,
and proceed step by step. An example could be made first to play
with the idea.

Thus the user manual would emerge gradually and naturally.

Your opinion?

 

[Dmitry A. Soshnikov]

[...]
Why not add examples, clarifications, images, opinions, recommendations,
discussions directly to ECMA-262
[...]

Because it's a technical algorithm descriptions but not the practical
hand/cook book with funny pictures and easy (but not correct)
terminology which we can see in many articles.

I wrote 7 deep articles of ECMA-262-3 details <http://javascript.ru/
ecmascript-in-detail>, but for now they are just in Russian. I'll find
the time and will translate them. There will be something you want to
do with ECMA-262 standard - simplified but accurate and correct
explanations of algorithms and so one.

But if you're talking just about marginal notes made right in ECMA-262
standard - that's a good idea and everyone can do it himself.

 

[optimistx]

Because it's a technical algorithm descriptions but not the practical
hand/cook book with funny pictures and easy (but not correct)
terminology which we can see in many articles.

I wrote 7 deep articles of ECMA-262-3 details <http://javascript.ru/
ecmascript-in-detail>, but for now they are just in Russian. I'll find
the time and will translate them. There will be something you want to
do with ECMA-262 standard - simplified but accurate and correct
explanations of algorithms and so one.

But if you're talking just about marginal notes made right in ECMA-262
standard - that's a good idea and everyone can do it himself.

Your kind tone makes me happy, thanks.

The first time you mentioned your articles I let google translate them for
me. I understood quite a lot, but not everything. If I understood
Russian, I woul like to translate them.

Yes, marginal notes can be written by oneself, but how to share them
with others? E.g. php-manual (for php-language) has reader comments,
which I many times have found more interesting than the actual manual
text; but both are useful.

I proposed to start from ECMA-262 because here some knowledgeable
purists do not respect anything
else, even Flanagan's book is rubbish or unreliable or something.

But maybe that most regulars know so much about javascript that
these are not interesting for them.

phph-manual: http://www.php.net/manual/en/

bookmarklets in practice:
http://instacalc.com
http://betterexplained.com/articles/how-to-make-a-bookmarklet-for-your-web-application/

 

[optimistx]

So what's your current status on that "annotation project"?

It has not been started . Perhaps other similar or better projects for
ECMAScript learning exist already (?).

 

[VK]

It has not been started . Perhaps other similar or better projects for
ECMAScript learning exist already (?).

I'd really like to see ECMA Books translated in Latin one day - that
would be a psychedelic reading stuff I would pay to have

 

[VK]

For your strictly decorative bookshelf which already houses the original
specification?

Oh yes, together with my special English edition bound in human flesh
and inked in blood

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

I proposed to start from ECMA-262 because here some knowledgeable
purists do not respect anything
else, even Flanagan's book is rubbish or unreliable or something.

You need to say whether you intend to use ECMA 263 3rd Edition and which
errata, in which case you should equally be using ISO/IEC 16262, since
16262 is a more recent version with some of the errors removed; or
whether you will be using 5th Edition, in which case (AFAIK) you can
only make draft comments, since (AFAIK) 5th Edition has not yet received
the final and indispensable accolade of being formally issued.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Why latin? They are already translated to Russian by Soshnikov, which
you can read easily.

There are no "ECMA Books" or "Book(s) of ECMA". Please do not follow up on
that newest religious fantasy of the person calling themselves "VK" here.

Instead, there are several technical Specifications published by Ecma
International (formerly ECMA), the one (or two) relevant here being numbered
ECMA-262 (and titled "ECMAScript Language Specification" -- of which there
are three published Editions so far, the third being the most relevant
today) and ECMA-357 (titled "ECMAScript for XML").

Why not start with that?

Because they already admitted they "don't give a damn" what "ECMA" has to
say?


PointedEars

 

[Dmitry A. Soshnikov]

[...]
They are already translated to Russian by Soshnikov
[...]

No, kangax, I write my author's articles about ECMA-262-3 features,
explaining this stuff to every interested in ES deeply.

But if meant translation of exactly ECMA-262-3 specification - we also
have the Russion translation - <http://javascript.ru/ecma> - that's
official translation coordinated and agreed with ECMA, but it was
translated not by me (though, was review by me also).