JavaScript (tm) hoax
VK
terribly copyrighted, the language is called ECMAScript from now on,
and further".
First of all yes, JAVASCRIPT is a registered trademark in the US of
Sun Microsystems, Inc., now a wholly owned subsidiary of Oracle
Corporation. The Mark Drawing Code of the trademark is "Typed
drawing". That means that JavaScript, Javascript, javascript or even
JaVaScRiPt are equally registered trademarks appertaining to Sun
Microsystems, Inc. Other words any typed or drawn sequence of
characters "JAVASCRIPT" in any case or any case mixture.
United States Patent and Trademark Office search:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/
In the EU JAVASCRIPT is still available for registration by any
interested company: unlike JAVA which is trademarked by Oracle
America, Inc.(sic!) for any use in the domains of "computers, computer
hardware, computer peripherals, integrated circuits, computer
software".
OHIM search:
http://oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager/en_SearchBasic
ECMASCRIPT is not trademarked in the US nor in the EU. Yet "ECMA
International" is recently registered in the US, Mark Drawing Code
"Standard Character Mark, no claim is made to the exclusive right to
use 'International' apart from the mark as shown".
It is important that the registration is finished just in April of
2010. Respectively it doesn't have the affidavit SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-
YR)
What does it mean is that within the next 6 years any former "ECMA" or
"ECMA International" trademark user, irrespectively to the current
registration status, can claim his/her priority rights for the
trademark and to get it back or to get a royalty, just like it was
with Firefox a few years ago.
Note: Personally to me the optimum would be some porno studio to claim
these priority rights so to get the Swiss ECMA hell out of the
picture...
Now what are the implications of JAVASCRIPT being a trademark of Sun
Microsystems, Inc.? None. Sun didn't and doesn't develop JavaScript
standards or unified engines obligatory to use by everyone. It cannot
and it doesn't plan to start collecting royalties for each
"JAVASCRIPT" word usage. For that they would need to enforce royalties
to the whole Web, wherever "javascript" is written and/or sent.
The purpose of holding this trademark is the community interest. The
best it is described by PSF for "Python", so I simply quote, just
imagine JavaScript instead of Python:
http://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
"Trademark law is mainly a way to protect the public, rather than the
trademark holder. This means that uses of trademarks that confuse
consumers -- which in our case would include our developer and user
community, or anyone else who might be likely to use the Python
programming language -- are not permitted under law. As the owner of
the trademark, we must be sure the mark is used properly, so the
community is not confused."
So the trademark is a guarantee that no one will make a derivative of C
++ or BASIC and will start to distribute it under JavaScript name. Or
someone will write a book like "C++ is the king, JavaScript sucks" or
the like. This is a Good Thing(tm).
So why so much of fuss all recently with JavaScript - after 15 years -
being treated nearly as an evil name and ECMAScript being pushed into
all available holes? Because the situation has been changed
dramatically. The "toy language" is the definite winner: and there is
an army of highly upset C++'ers (and a few survived Java'ers) looking
at that.
Their core believes and principals of Doing Right Things In The Only
Right Way are challenged - and instead of fixing it they have to write
optimized engines for that "toy language".
So the medieval Ius primae noctis goes into use: if you cannot
eliminate your enemies then try to absorb them so soon they will be
just a part of yours. If you cannot eliminate JavaScript - just make
it a weird yet acceptable C++ bastard. In this case an enforced name
change is the most effective identity breakout. -JavaScript doesn't
have and doesn't need this and that? -Well, who's talking about
JavaScript? It is ECMAScript, man, here it does.
All above and further is my my own personal opinion - lesser
trademarks status data. Anyone is welcome to agree on it, argue with
it or to ignore it.
From my side I do reserve my rights to:
1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript
instead of "wrong" term JavaScript.
2) to send to hell any hoax about the "copyright danger" of using
JavaScript instead of "public domain" ECMAScript.
3) to send to hell and fight with any attempt of making from
JavaScript a C++ bastard. Mozilla or anyone else wants it - let them
do it. They can make ECMAScript or EICHScript or JS#Script in any form
that satisfy them. It is out of any wide community interest. The
community does care about JavaScript as the language of the Web.
4) to put periodical requests to change the language name in the FAQ
to the form corresponding to the group description and the charter. If
it is not done, then remove the word "official" from the FAQ
description. Do not expect it to be done, but periodical requests with
rationale in them at least will inform readers about my view at the
actual situation.
Joe Nine
> From my side I do reserve my rights to:
> 1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript
> instead of "wrong" term JavaScript.
You'll be busy countering Thomas pointedears daily claims that there is
no javascript :)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
"javascript" !== "JavaScript"
HTH & HAND
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
Stefan Weiss
> So the medieval Ius primae noctis goes into use: if you cannot
> eliminate your enemies then try to absorb them so soon they will be
> just a part of yours.
That's an interesting interpretation of the ius primae noctis.
--
stefan
RobG
wrote:
> Joe Nine wrote:
> > VK wrote:
> >> From my side I do reserve my rights to:
> >> 1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript
> >> instead of "wrong" term JavaScript.
>
> > You'll be busy countering Thomas pointedears daily claims that there is
> > no javascript :)
>
> "javascript" !== "JavaScript"
In the realm of trademarks, I think you'll find that the two are
identical. Capitalisation is irrelevant.
--
Rob
VK
wrote:
> "javascript" !== "JavaScript"
Possibly is in some countries. I am not a trademark adviser, I am
(now) a trends calculator. Whatever I know is coming from our time-
share copyright specialists.
As much as the US law is concerned:
'javascript' == 'JavaScript' == 'JAVASCRIPT';
David Mark
> On May 30, 4:32 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@web.de>
> wrote:
>
> > "javascript" !== "JavaScript"
>
> Possibly is in some countries. I am not a trademark adviser, I am
> (now) a trends calculator. Whatever I know is coming from our time-
> share copyright specialists.
Time shares? There's never been a better time to buy (or sell!) Call
for our free brochure. :)
>
> As much as the US law is concerned:
> 'javascript' == 'JavaScript' == 'JAVASCRIPT';
That has nothing to do with accuracy in a technical discussion.
Nobody is worried about TM violations.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Joe Nine wrote:
>> > VK wrote:
>> >> From my side I do reserve my rights to:
>> >> 1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript
>> >> instead of "wrong" term JavaScript.
>> >
>> > You'll be busy countering Thomas pointedears daily claims that there is
>> > no javascript :)
>>
>> "javascript" !== "JavaScript"
>
> In the realm of trademarks, I think you'll find that the two are
> identical. Capitalisation is irrelevant.
While that may be true, and might even apply to "JavaScript"
(all capitalizations), you miss the point completely.
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
Joe Nine
> Joe Nine wrote:
>
>> VK wrote:
>>> From my side I do reserve my rights to:
>>> 1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript
>>> instead of "wrong" term JavaScript.
>> You'll be busy countering Thomas pointedears daily claims that there is
>> no javascript :)
>
> "javascript" !== "JavaScript"
>
I'm not subscribed to comp.lang.JavaScript and my script tags don't
specify "JavaScript" either. It's only pedantism and semantics to think
that JavaScript is how it must always be referred to. Sure if you're
writing a book/article/guide/how-to then you'd ensure to case it
correctly. For all other usage, javascript == perfectly acceptable.
There maybe no spoon, but there's certainly a javascript :)
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Joe Nine wrote:
>>> VK wrote:
>>>> From my side I do reserve my rights to:
>>>> 1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript
>>>> instead of "wrong" term JavaScript.
>>> You'll be busy countering Thomas pointedears daily claims that there is
>>> no javascript :)
>>
>> "javascript" !== "JavaScript"
>
> I'm not subscribed to comp.lang.JavaScript and my script tags don't
> specify "JavaScript" either. It's only pedantism and semantics to think
> that JavaScript is how it must always be referred to.
It is a fallacy to assume that this is wanted.
> Sure if you're writing a book/article/guide/how-to then you'd ensure to
> case it correctly. For all other usage, javascript == perfectly
> acceptable.
No, for reasons I have already explained.
> There maybe no spoon, but there's certainly a javascript :)
There is one in the heads of its inventors. Unfortunately, that is not what
the rest of the world understands it to be.
John G Harris
On the other hand, the owners of the dBase II trademark got very upset
with anyone who got the capitals in the wrong place.
John
--
John Harris
VK
wrote:
> There is one in the heads of its inventors. Unfortunately, that is not what
> the rest of the world understands it to be.
When back in July 1995 Brendan Eich, a 34 years old invited Unix
specialist, set down to write a helper language for Netscape browser
to get the max out of the "thin client" Java concept: back then he
called it "Mocha" to continue the coffee naming concept from Sun. Just
prior the release in September of 1995 it was renamed to "LiveScript"
to sound more dynamic and attractive. Yet after the preliminary
testing is over the language was voluntaristically renamed into
"JavaScript" in November of 1995 because "Java" was a "buzz word" of
the day at that time.
So no, there were not three fairies over the bed of the newborn
language. Only the ugly PR suckers. One wants to get the innocence
name back - call it LiveScript then. or Mocha. Anything else is a pure
politics.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> There is one in the heads of its inventors. Unfortunately, that is not
>> what the rest of the world understands it to be.
>
> When back in July 1995 Brendan Eich, [snip fairytale]
Brendan Eich did not invent (the term) "javascript", he invented JavaScript.
Got it?
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
John G Harris
<snip>
>to get the Swiss ECMA hell out of the
>picture...
ECMA is foreign! Bad! Wicked! Nuke it!
<snip>
>The "toy language" is the definite winner: and there is
>an army of highly upset C++'ers (and a few survived Java'ers) looking
>at that.
<snip>
Are you seriously suggesting that ECMAScript is used to build an
operating system ?
John
--
John Harris
John G Harris
>terribly copyrighted, the language is called ECMAScript from now on,
>and further".
There are three major errors in that paragraph.
First, trademarks have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright stops you
copying large chunks of text, film, etc. and selling it without
permission. A trademark says that this product was made by X or by
someone licensed by X to use the mark. (Think MacDonald's)
Second, no-one has asked for it to be called ECMAScript. ECMAScript is
part of the JavaScript language but not all of it, just as it's part of
the JScript language but not all of it. No-one has suggested that
'ECMAScript' should have two meanings in this news group.
Third, 'JavaScript' excludes anything implemented by Microsoft. There
are plenty of people who pretend that Microsoft doesn't exist, but the
comp.lang.* newsgroups can't afford to be so partisan. The fuss, as you
call it, is to find a term that does include things coming from
Microsoft.
John
--
John Harris
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> VK wrote:
>> I got really wondered with the recent fuss about "JavaScript is
>> terribly copyrighted, the language is called ECMAScript from now on,
>> and further".
>
> There are three major errors in that paragraph.
>
> First, trademarks have nothing to do with copyright. Copyright stops you
> copying large chunks of text, film, etc. and selling it without
> permission.
No, a copyright does not by definition stop one from doing that; instead,
it provides the copyright holder with a means to restrict the *legal*
distribution of the work thus protected.
> A trademark says that this product was made by X or by
> someone licensed by X to use the mark. (Think MacDonald's)
_McDonald's_
> Second, no-one has asked for it to be called ECMAScript.
ACK
> ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language but not all of it, just as
> it's part of the JScript language but not all of it.
Utter nonsense.
> No-one has suggested that 'ECMAScript' should have two meanings in this
> news group.
Correct.
> Third, 'JavaScript' excludes anything implemented by Microsoft. There
> are plenty of people who pretend that Microsoft doesn't exist, but the
> comp.lang.* newsgroups can't afford to be so partisan. The fuss, as you
> call it, is to find a term that does include things coming from
> Microsoft.
... and other implementors.
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$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>
RobG
They would see it as a brand recognition issue, which is different to
trademark. Where a brand is concerned, colours, font and layout are
very important. But that is covered by copyright, not trademark.
A change in capitalisation is considered insufficient to differentiate
trademarks, which is a good thing.
--
Rob
John G Harris
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>John G Harris wrote:
<snip>
>> ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language but not all of it, just as
>> it's part of the JScript language but not all of it.
>
>Utter nonsense.
<snip>
"ECMAScript can provide core scripting capabilities for a variety of
host environments, and therefore the core scripting language is
specified in this document apart from any particular host environment."
Explain why this appears in the standard. Or do you disagree with it?
John
--
John Harris
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> John G Harris wrote:
>>> ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language but not all of it, just as
>>> it's part of the JScript language but not all of it.
>> Utter nonsense.
> <snip>
>
> "ECMAScript can provide core scripting capabilities for a variety of
> host environments, and therefore the core scripting language is
> specified in this document apart from any particular host environment."
>
> Explain why this appears in the standard.
(Polite people say "please".) No, that's a red herring.
> Or do you disagree with it?
I am disagreeing with your misinterpretation of it.
PointedEars
--
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
John G Harris
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>John G Harris wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> John G Harris wrote:
>>>> ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language but not all of it, just as
>>>> it's part of the JScript language but not all of it.
>>> Utter nonsense.
>> <snip>
>>
>> "ECMAScript can provide core scripting capabilities for a variety of
>> host environments, and therefore the core scripting language is
>> specified in this document apart from any particular host environment."
>>
>> Explain why this appears in the standard.
>
>(Polite people say "please".) No, that's a red herring.
>
>> Or do you disagree with it?
>
>I am disagreeing with your misinterpretation of it.
a) "ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language".
b) "the core scripting language is specified in this document"
Clearly (b) logically implies (a). If you disagree you have to explain
your reasoning otherwise no sensible person will believe you.
John
--
John Harris
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> a) "ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language".
>
> b) "the core scripting language is specified in this document"
>
> Clearly (b) logically implies (a).
Most certainly it doesn't. Your logic is flawed.
> If you disagree you have to explain your reasoning otherwise no sensible
> person will believe you.
JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript. It implements this Language
Specification, and extends it as the Specification allows. That does not
mean that ECMAScript is a part of JavaScript, that is just nonsense.
If you prefer an analogy, a Ford Mustang is an implementation of the concept
"car" (as in automobile). Most certainly, however, a car is not a part of a
Ford Mustang. The cold-air induction & dual exhaust of the former's 2011
version (not that I am a car addict, the name just came to my mind, and
Google was my friend) corresponds with, say, the Array comprehension and
destructuring assignment of JavaScript (since version 1.7).
HTH
John G Harris
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>John G Harris wrote:
>
>> a) "ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language".
>>
>> b) "the core scripting language is specified in this document"
>>
>> Clearly (b) logically implies (a).
>
>Most certainly it doesn't. Your logic is flawed.
>
>> If you disagree you have to explain your reasoning otherwise no sensible
>> person will believe you.
>
>JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript. It implements this Language
>Specification, and extends it as the Specification allows. That does not
>mean that ECMAScript is a part of JavaScript, that is just nonsense.
So that's where the problem lies. I'm afraid Netscape's idea of what
JavaScript is differs from your idea. Here are three quotes from NN4's
online manuals. The first two come from the online JavaScript Reference,
the third from the online JavaScript Guide.
"Client-Side JavaScript Reference
This book is a reference manual for the JavaScript language, including
both core and client-side JavaScript for version 1.3. JavaScript is
Netscape's cross-platform, object-based scripting language for client
and server applications."
"About this Book
JavaScript is Netscape's cross-platform, object-based scripting language
for client and server applications. This book is a reference manual for
the JavaScript language, including both core and client-side
JavaScript."
"JavaScript and ECMA Terminology
The ECMA specification uses terminology and syntax that may be
unfamiliar to a JavaScript programmer. Although the description of the
language may differ in ECMA, the language itself remains the same.
JavaScript supports all functionality outlined in the ECMA
specification."
Points to note :
1 Netscape defined JavaScript to be a language, not an implementation of
some (unnamed) language.
2 Netscape declared that ECMA 262 specifies part of JavaScript. Thus the
set of all ECMAScript's legal productions (code strings) is a subset of
JavaScript's, and their behaviour is the same. Also, any objects
required in an ECMAScript execution environment are also required in a
JavaScript execution environment.
You could say that ECMAScript is a subset of JavaScript but that would
be a mild abuse of language. You can certainly say that ECMAScript is
the core language of JavaScript.
<snip>
John
--
John Harris
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> John G Harris wrote:
>>> a) "ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language".
>>>
>>> b) "the core scripting language is specified in this document"
>>>
>>> Clearly (b) logically implies (a).
>>
>> Most certainly it doesn't. Your logic is flawed.
>>
>>> If you disagree you have to explain your reasoning otherwise no sensible
>>> person will believe you.
>>
>> JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript. It implements this
>> Language Specification, and extends it as the Specification allows.
>> That does not mean that ECMAScript is a part of JavaScript, that is
>> just nonsense.
>
> So that's where the problem lies. I'm afraid Netscape's idea of what
> JavaScript is differs from your idea.
I am not afraid, I am certain now that you still don't know what you are
talking about.
> Here are three quotes from NN4's online manuals.
You do realize that this documentation is seriously flawed, that NN4 is
obsolete, that JavaScript 1.5 as of Mozilla 1.0 is a conforming ECMAScript
implementation, and that JavaScript since 1.4 no longer includes NN's host
objects, don't you?
You do realize that the "core scripting language" being specified is the
language without regard to the host environment, don't you?
You do realize that the host environment provides the implementation, don't
you?
John G Harris
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<snip>
>You do realize
<snip>
I do realise that this next quote is going to upset you. It appears in
the Mozilla Development Centre, at
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en/About_JavaScript>
"What is JavaScript?
JavaScript is the Netscape-developed object scripting language used in
millions of web pages and server applications worldwide. Netscape's
JavaScript is a superset of the ECMA-262 Edition 3 (ECMAScript) standard
scripting language, with only mild differences from the published
standard."
John
--
John Harris
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> I do realise that this next quote is going to upset you. It appears in
> the Mozilla Development Centre, at
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/About_JavaScript>
I realize that you have still no clue what you are talking about.
John G Harris
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>John G Harris wrote:
>
>> I do realise that this next quote is going to upset you. It appears in
>> the Mozilla Development Centre, at
>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/About_JavaScript>
>
>I realize that you have still no clue what you are talking about.
I predicted that the quote would annoy you. I was right.
You have failed to make a convincing case. You deny that ECMAScript is
the core language. The several owners of the technologies say it is.
ETX
John
--
John Harris
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> John G Harris wrote:
>>> I do realise that this next quote is going to upset you. It appears in
>>> the Mozilla Development Centre, at
>>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/About_JavaScript>
>> I realize that you have still no clue what you are talking about.
>
> I predicted that the quote would annoy you. I was right.
On the contrary, I find your ongoing naiveté quite refreshing.
John G Harris
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
<snip>
>JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript. It implements this Language
>Specification, and extends it as the Specification allows. That does not
>mean that ECMAScript is a part of JavaScript, that is just nonsense.
<snip>
To put it more generally, you are saying that if A is a programming
language and B extends A then B is an implementation of A, and that
there is no way in which A can be said to be a part of B.
You say this even though all the syntax rules of A are also syntax rules
of B; and all the semantic specifications of A are semantic
specifications of B; and all the predefined functions, variables, and
objects required when an A-program is executing are also required when a
B-program is executing, etc.
One consequence of your definition is that you say that ES3 is an
implementation of ES2, implying that it's not really a language, or not
a first class language.
I could have understood you saying that 'part' is not the best word to
use, but to say that it is nonsense betrays a woeful ignorance of
English.
HTH
John
--
John Harris
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript. It implements this
>> Language Specification, and extends it as the Specification allows.
>> That does not mean that ECMAScript is a part of JavaScript, that is
>> just nonsense.
>
> To put it more generally, you are saying that if A is a programming
> language and B extends A then B is an implementation of A, and that
> there is no way in which A can be said to be a part of B.
If A is a programming language specification that describes implementations
of itself.
> You say this even though all the syntax rules of A are also syntax rules
> of B;
That is a fallacy since A is ECMAScript.
> and all the semantic specifications of A are semantic
> specifications of B;
That is a fallacy, too, since A is ECMAScript.
> One consequence of your definition is that you say that ES3 is an
> implementation of ES2,
No, that is a consequence of your fallacy.
John G Harris
'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>John G Harris wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript. It implements this
>>> Language Specification, and extends it as the Specification allows.
>>> That does not mean that ECMAScript is a part of JavaScript, that is
>>> just nonsense.
>>
>> To put it more generally, you are saying that if A is a programming
>> language and B extends A then B is an implementation of A, and that
>> there is no way in which A can be said to be a part of B.
>
>If A is a programming language specification that describes implementations
>of itself.
If A is a specification that describes implementations of A ?
That's what specifications do. However, I said A is the *language*
specified, given A has a specification.
>> You say this even though all the syntax rules of A are also syntax rules
>> of B;
>
>That is a fallacy since A is ECMAScript.
Technically it's not a fallacy as generalisation on constants is a valid
transformation. (See a book on logic).
Are you trying to say that it's false, so that
while ( Expression ) Statement
is not a syntax rule of JavaScript (from at least NN4) ?
>> and all the semantic specifications of A are semantic
>> specifications of B;
>
>That is a fallacy, too, since A is ECMAScript.
Ditto
>> One consequence of your definition is that you say that ES3 is an
>> implementation of ES2,
>
>No, that is a consequence of your fallacy.
Are you trying to say that ES3 is not an extension of ES2 ?
John
--
John Harris
VK
> Are you trying to say that ES3 is not an extension of ES2 ?
One needs to distinguish between the name issue as spelled in my
original post and the name issue as for Thomas.
The latter is simple: it is for him just an endless source of
attacking newcomers with silly screams "there is no JavaScript, idiot
(moron, ...)!"
Behind the first issue is the big politics, and Thomas just happened
to be a child seemingly doing the same what adults do. And the
politics is big. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not recall a single
occurrence in the programming history, when the language would be
renamed after over a decade of intensive use. Completely *new*
languages with new names, based on some previous language - yes, it
happens left and right, C and C++ for a quick sample.
Again: the programming language of the Web is called JavaScript, no
space, J and S are capitalized. It is also the language of distributed
Web applications, of the upcoming Microsoft Office package and - in
the close future - the language of small-footprint OS where the whole
OS is basically a web-page open in a no-interface (kiosk mode)
browser.
JavaScript, 10 characters, no space, J and S are capitalized. Rather
easy to remember IMO.
The international newsgroup specifically dealing with JavaScript
related questions is called comp.lang.javascript, sometimes
unofficially abbreviated to c.l.j. or clj
clj doesn't give a freak about other programming languages unless the
question is related to a "language X - JavaScript" interaction.
Note: the clj FAQ page at http://www.jibbering.com/faq/ is currently
vandalized by some regulars and with the support of the current FAQ
maintainer. It will be eventually brought back in accordance with the
clj group description and charter. The moral aspect of renaming core
things which are not yours and reflecting it in a document that is not
your original creation and not of your property - this aspect to be
discussed some day later.
Microsoft uses JavaScript under its own brand name JScript. Again:
JavaScript and JScript are not two separate languages. It is the same
language JavaScript used under the separate brand name "JScript".
JavaScript core language standard described (rather lousy, but
however) in ECMA-262 3rd edition. The document is misleadingly titled
"ECMAScript Language Specification" which is false: there is not and
never was such language and ECMA International never standardized it.
The proper title is given at the top right corner of the first page:
"Standard ECMA-262 3rd Edition - December 1999".
To avoid repeatedly typing "JavaScript in all prominent (or being of
interest for the current question, or ever existed etc.) engine
implementations", once some clj regulars used to type Javascript, with
letter "s" without capitalization. It is not a standard spelling of
any kind, it is just a shortcut for the above given sentence(s), used
by a narrow set of people knowing the interpretation context.
John G Harris
<snip>
>The document is misleadingly titled
>"ECMAScript Language Specification" which is false: there is not and
>never was such language and ECMA International never standardized it.
<snip>
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ...
John
--
John Harris
VK
> >"ECMAScript Language Specification" which is false: there is not and
> >never was such language and ECMA International never standardized it.
>
> <snip>
>
> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ...
It may sound funny but true. ECMA International was never asked to
develop a language and/or to give it a name. All they had been asked
is to make a formal description of JavaScript as a programming
language and a formal description of the code interpretor. Even less,
they had been asked to describe JavaScript without any host object
parts. That makes JavaScript standard specification (but not the
language itself, of course) to be the only one of the kind. It is the
only language specification, that doesn't provide *any* tools to get
any results from executing programs. It was clearly understood by
authors and by customers, so ECMA-262 2nd ed. (August 1998) was
saying:
"ECMAScript as defined here is not intended to be computationally self-
sufficient;
indeed, there are no provisions in this specification for input of
external data
or output of computed results."
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262-arch.htm
In the 3rd ed. this part was removed, obviously not because something
changed: simply the words like "is not intended to be computationally
self-sufficient" didn't "look right" for a language specification, so
it was left out as a self-evident fact.
Note: ECMA-262 1st ed. (1996) is now an electronic rarity, removed
from ECMA official archives. I once had it but I lost it together with
my old notebook. It is so lousy that looks like a junior-high
unfinished homework rather than an "international standardization
organization" product.
If anyone has a copy of ECMA-262 1st ed., it would be great to get a
link.
Same time "ECMAScript" slang term popped up. In the introductory part
the described part of JavaScript is called "the ECMA Standard" or "the
Standard". Yet repeatedly calling a language "the Standard" was
strange, and repeatedly typing "non computationally self-sufficient
JavaScript specification without host objects" would be long and
silly. So "ECMAScript" in ECMA docs has the similar convenience
shortcut origin as "Javascript" in my previous post.
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> Again: the programming language of the Web is called JavaScript, no
> space, J and S are capitalized.
That capitalization tradition has been lost along the way. Many users
of the word don't know that the original language name was capitalized
like that.
The reason for that is probably that the capitalization wasn't used in
the places where most of the users actually wrote the name:
type="text/javascript" and language="javascript1.2".
It is also a problem that JavaScript, as currently specified by the
Mozilla organization, has multiple versions with extra features that
are not shared by the other scripting engines. I.e., there are features
of JavaScript versions that only exist in Mozilla engines (Spidermonkey,
Tracemonkey, Rhino).
To misuse a phrase: There is no JavaScript.
There is JavaScript 1.0, JavaScript 1.1, JavaScript 1.2, etc. up to
JavaScript 1.8.1. These are different languages. Most extend earlier
versions. Some (like 1.2) introduced changes that were dropped again.
There is also a number of JScript variants that introduce new features
not shared with any JavaScript version.
And then there are all the other languages that are extensions of the
ECMAScript language. Most of these are unnamed, only specified by
their implementation's name (Carakan, Futhark, Nitro, Squirrelfish,
V8) and have feature sets that change with the implementation's
versions, without a separate specification.
I.e.: ECMAScript, JavaScript and JScript are language families
specified by their separate specifications (each having several
versions). Other languages have no separate specifications, only
implementations. These are generally extensions of ECMAScript,
but not of JavaScript.
> JavaScript core language standard described (rather lousy, but
> however) in ECMA-262 3rd edition.
No, that's the ECMAScript language.
The JavaScript core language is specified in (e.g.)
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference
This Core JavaScript language includes, e.g., LiveConnect. It also
includes an Array.prototype.toSource function. These are not part
of ECMAScript, and there are other ECMAScript based languages in
browsers that don't have, at least, the latter.
> The document is misleadingly titled
> "ECMAScript Language Specification" which is false: there is not and
> never was such language and ECMA International never standardized it.
You have this backwards. The standard is a language specification.
The language specified is called ECMAScript, both
1) because the people writing the specification says so, and
2) because it isn't the same language as the one specified by any of the
JavaScript versions.
> The proper title is given at the top right corner of the first page:
> "Standard ECMA-262 3rd Edition - December 1999".
Have you read any other ECMA standards?
Take from the ECMA-357 standard front page:
Standard ECMA-357 2nd Edition / December 2005
ECMAScript for XML (E4X) Specification
The former identifies the document, but the latter is the title.
The title of ECMA 262 is "ECMAScript Language Specification". And that
is also what the document does. It specifies a language. You can call
it whatevery you want, but they call it ECMAScript.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Holst Nielsen
'Javascript frameworks is a disruptive technology'
VK
wrote:
> VK <schools_r...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Again: the programming language of the Web is called JavaScript, no
> > space, J and S are capitalized.
>
> That capitalization tradition has been lost along the way. Many users
> of the word don't know that the original language name was capitalized
> like that.
Many Usenet users write "i" instead of "I" and "u" instead of "you".
Many quick typers do not use capital letters at all: "i see what u'r
saying. i don't agree on that." Does it change anyhow the English
spelling rules as they are? If some/many users do not know the proper
spelling of the language they are using, clj task is to correct them
and to show the right sample, not to adapt FAQ page to the broken
orthography.
> The reason for that is probably that the capitalization wasn't used in
> the places where most of the users actually wrote the name:
> type="text/javascript" and language="javascript1.2".
Whatever the reason is: this, or just for the speedy typing. I don't
care why someone types "u" instead of "you". In public document I will
use "you".
> To misuse a phrase: There is no JavaScript.
> There is JavaScript 1.0, JavaScript 1.1, JavaScript 1.2, etc. up to
> JavaScript 1.8.1. These are different languages. Most extend earlier
> versions. Some (like 1.2) introduced changes that were dropped again.
Sure... And there is not C++ for the same reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B#Language_standard
John G Harris
>> � <snip>>The document is misleadingly titled
>> >"ECMAScript Language Specification" which is false: there is not and
>> >never was such language and ECMA International never standardized it.
>>
>> � <snip>
>>
>> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ...
>
>It may sound funny but true.
A considerable majority of governments voted to call it ECMAScript. You
are outvoted. And out-ranked.
See ISO/IEC 16262:2002, where it says
"1 Scope
This International Standard defines the ECMAScript scripting language."
John
--
John Harris
VK
They just repeated the wording from the first page of submitted paper.
Fast track procedure, you know... Who cares? Yet you are welcome to
use ECMAScript in ECMA International sense - but only as defined by
ECMA. I see windows.alert(val) or the like - I calling police if it's
called anyhow else but JavaScript ;-) :-|
John G Harris
>On Jun 6, 8:59 pm, John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 at 03:17:39, in comp.lang.javascript, VK wrote:
>> >> <snip>>The document is misleadingly titled
>> >> >"ECMAScript Language Specification" which is false: there is not and
>> >> >never was such language and ECMA International never standardized it.
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ...
>>
>> >It may sound funny but true.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> A considerable majority of governments voted to call it ECMAScript. You
>> are outvoted. And out-ranked.
>>
>> See ISO/IEC 16262:2002, where it says
>> "1 Scope
>> This International Standard defines the ECMAScript scripting language."
>
>They just repeated the wording from the first page of submitted paper.
>Fast track procedure, you know...
Fast track doesn't mean automatic. It could have been altered if
national standards committees thought it was very wrong.
>Who cares? Yet you are welcome to
>use ECMAScript in ECMA International sense - but only as defined by
>ECMA. I see windows.alert(val) or the like - I calling police if it's
>called anyhow else
We've been saying that for years. I'm glad you understand it.
>but JavaScript ;-) :-|
Have you given Microsoft a free licence to use the name in their product
advertisements ?
No ? Thought not.
John
--
John Harris