«

RobG wrote:
> On Oct 8, 12:46 pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> 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.

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

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, <f806at$ail$1$>

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, <f806at$ail$1$>

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

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.

In comp.lang.javascript message <gcgmg5$t5v$>, Wed, 8 Oct 2008
00:05:58, Conrad Lender <> posted:
>On 2008-10-07 23:05, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 8:11 pm, Conrad Lender <crlen...@yahoo.com> 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?

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.

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

REPOST ?

In comp.lang.javascript message <830F0FF37FB96852AD0
8924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:15:04, John G Harris
<> posted:
>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)

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 at 17:42:47, in comp.lang.javascript, Dr J R
Stockton wrote:
>REPOST ?
>
>In comp.lang.javascript message <830F0FF37FB96852AD0
>8924D9443D28E23ED5CD>, Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:15:04, John G Harris
><> posted:
>>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

On Oct 6, 7:04*pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com> 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. 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