«

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

On Oct 7, 12:04*pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> 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

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.'

On Oct 7, 7:03*am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <lrn.unr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> 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.

On Oct 7, 8:19*am, Jorge <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 7:03*am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <lrn.unr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> 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, ....|

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.

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 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

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

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