Andreas Bergmaier wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>
<
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/31/11189033/1118903331-15.pdf>
>> Page 3:
>>
>> | JavaScript and the Web
>> |
>> | […]
>> | The organization that sets the standards for web pages is the World
>> | Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It not only sets standards for HTML and CSS,
>> | but also for how JavaScript interacts with web pages inside a web
>> | browser.
>>
>> Utter nonsense. The W3C specifies the Document Object Model (DOM), a
>> standard of *language-independent* interfaces for interacting with
>> documents written in markup languages like HTML, which are the primary
>> focus of the W3C. ECMAScript implementations like JavaScript, among
>> other programming languages, can then be used to access implementations
>> of those interfaces and interact with DOM objects.
>
> As you like to put it: *wrong!*.
I have never written “wrong!”.
First of all, you would be well-advised to check the “javascript”
newsgroups’ records [1], and read the ECMAScript Support Matrix (signature).
I, for one, am well aware of (DOM Level 2 and 3) ECMAScript *language
binding*, the history and its current status; including HTML5 and its
ecosystem.
Second, (AISB) ECMAScript is _not_ JavaScript, so your counter-argument is
invalid in that regard, too.
Third, this part of the DOM Level 3 Core Specification says how objects that
can *be used with* ECMAScript (implementations) and *implement* these
interfaces are supposed to work; it does _not_ say *which* objects should
implement these interfaces. For example, it does _not_ say that the object
referred to by the “document” property of the object referred to by the
host-defined “window” property of the ECMAScript global object should
implement the Document interface (as it is done). And it certainly does not
make the DOM interfaces language-dependent:
,-<
https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407/
|
| Abstract
|
| This specification defines the Document Object Model Core Level 3, a
| platform- and language-neutral interface that allows programs and scripts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| to dynamically access and update the content, structure and style of
| documents. […]
(Where I said “language-independent”, the W3C uses “language-neutral” which
is synonymous.)
Two common examples for that:
<
https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407/java-binding.html>
<
http://php.net/dom>
Fourth, DOM Level 2/3 Core applies to, but is insufficient for working with,
HTML. Therefore, ECMAScript *language binding* is also specified in DOM
Level 2 HTML for HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 documents:
<
https://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-DOM-Level-2-HTML-20030109/ecma-script-binding.html>
Again, this is not limited to ECMAScript and its implementations:
,-<
https://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-DOM-Level-2-HTML-20030109/>
|
| Abstract
|
| This specification defines the Document Object Model Level 2 HTML, a
| platform- and language-neutral interface that allows programs and scripts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| to dynamically access and update the content and structure of [HTML 4.01]
| and [XHTML 1.0] documents.
Example:
<
https://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-DOM-Level-2-HTML-20030109/java-binding.html>
Fifth, as far as HTML5 is concerned, the ECMAScript language binding in the
W3C DOM Level 2 HTML Specification has been superseded by the interface
specifications in the HTML5 Specification, which are based on DOM4:
<
https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/infrastructure.html#common-dom-interfaces>
→ <
https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/infrastructure.html#domtokenlist>
→ <
https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/references.html#refsDOM>
→ <
https://www.w3.org/TR/dom/>
currently equivalent to <
https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-dom-20151119/>
_______
[1] <news:1753248.o...@PointedEars.de>
> Of course, the cited section still seems to be dated,
> as the standards are set by the WHATWG nowadays, not the W3.
Utter nonsense.
> The HTML(5) spec
> <
https://html.spec.whatwg.org> is much more tightly integrated with
> JavaScript, being the lingua franca of the web there is not much concern
> for interoperability with other languages.
No, as I explained several times before here, especially this year, HTML5
and the WHATWG HTML “Living Standard” (so-called) are two separate
specifications. HTML5 is developed by the W3C, WHATWG HTML by the WHATWG.
As their public communications shows, the WHATWG is a bunch of (mentally)
adolescent wannabes who can hardly be reasoned with. Unfortunately, through
their employment they have strong relations with browser vendors, so, given
the deadlock in the previous W3C HTML Working Group (WG), and the failure of
the W3C XHTML2 WG to produce a working standard, and pressure from browser
vendors increasing to renew HTML, the W3C had no choice but to give in, and
close the XHTML2 WG; so the new HTML WG uses snapshots of the WHATWG “Living
Standards” as the basis for HTML5 and its ecosystem. Were it not for the
W3C, we would be back in proprietary chaos, because that is what the WHATWG
really wants (read their manifesto carefully: they say browsers drive
standards instead of the other way around (which is true); but what they
really mean is that *their* browsers should drive standards).
,-<
https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/>
|
| Status of This Document
|
| […]
| Work on this specification is also done at the WHATWG. The W3C HTML
| working group actively pursues convergence of the HTML specification with
| the WHATWG living standard, within the bounds of the W3C HTML working
| group charter. There are various ways to follow this work at the WHATWG:
|
| […]
> | Some parts of the language described by this specification only
> | support JavaScript as the underlying scripting language. [JAVASCRIPT]
> |
> | Note: The term "JavaScript" is used to refer to ECMA-262, rather than
> | the official term ECMAScript, since the term JavaScript is more
> | widely known.
>
> | Similarly, the MIME type used to refer to JavaScript in
> | this specification is text/javascript, since that is the most
> | commonly used type, despite it being an officially obsoleted type
> | according to RFC 4329. [RFC4329]
Which does _not_ mean, if you read more carefully, that the W3C would
specify any part of JavaScript or ECMAScript or by which objects the
interfaces are to be implemented when accessible using JavaScript (or other
ECMAScript implementations).