EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by dhtml, Oct 7, 2008.

  1. dhtml

    dhtml Guest

    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
    dhtml, Oct 7, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dhtml

    RobG Guest

    On Oct 7, 12:04 pm, dhtml <> wrote:
    > 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
    RobG, Oct 7, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dhtml <> writes:

    > 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.'
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, Oct 7, 2008
    #3
  4. dhtml

    Jorge Guest

    On Oct 7, 7:03 am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <>
    wrote:
    > dhtml <> writes:
    > > 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.
    Jorge, Oct 7, 2008
    #4
  5. On Oct 7, 8:19 am, Jorge <> wrote:
    > On Oct 7, 7:03 am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > dhtml <> writes:
    > > > 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, ....|
    Dr J R Stockton, Oct 7, 2008
    #5
  6. 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.
    Richard Cornford, Oct 7, 2008
    #6
  7. 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
    Conrad Lender, Oct 7, 2008
    #7
  8. 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
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 7, 2008
    #8
  9. 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
    Conrad Lender, Oct 7, 2008
    #9
  10. 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
    John G Harris, Oct 7, 2008
    #10
  11. 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.
    Conrad Lender, Oct 7, 2008
    #11
  12. On Oct 7, 8:11 pm, Conrad Lender <> wrote:
    > 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 <H2> header, ...".

    --
    (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, ....|
    Dr J R Stockton, Oct 7, 2008
    #12
  13. 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
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 7, 2008
    #13
  14. On 2008-10-07 23:05, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
    > On Oct 7, 8:11 pm, Conrad Lender <> wrote:
    >>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
    Conrad Lender, Oct 7, 2008
    #14
  15. 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.
    Richard Cornford, Oct 8, 2008
    #15
  16. 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.
    Richard Cornford, Oct 8, 2008
    #16
  17. 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
    John W Kennedy, Oct 8, 2008
    #17
  18. dhtml

    dhtml Guest

    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/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html
    http://ajaxian.com/archives/brendan-eich-javascript-2-and-the-future-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.
    dhtml, Oct 8, 2008
    #18
  19. dhtml

    dhtml Guest

    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
    dhtml, Oct 8, 2008
    #19
  20. dhtml

    RobG Guest

    On Oct 8, 12:46 pm, dhtml <> wrote:
    > 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
    RobG, Oct 8, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RC
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,641
    Martin Honnen
    Jun 14, 2006
  2. Python with Ecmascript

    , Jul 5, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    769
    Daniel Fetchinson
    Jul 11, 2008
  3. Joe Kelsey

    ECMAScript syntax

    Joe Kelsey, Aug 14, 2003, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    74
    Douglas Crockford
    Aug 14, 2003
  4. manno

    JavaScript ECMAScript definitions

    manno, Apr 23, 2004, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    204
    Richard Cornford
    May 7, 2004
  5. Martin Rinehart

    JavaScript / ECMAScript

    Martin Rinehart, Nov 12, 2008, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    108
Loading...

Share This Page