Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Calling constructor function with or without new Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:14:50 +0200 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 50 Message-ID: <1539352.pOhnpQ6Ohf@PointedEars.de> References: <55745048$0$13014$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <4020474.azVoJSYf4R@PointedEars.de> <2573728.VVFZz2FXTb@PointedEars.de> <1856630.MTooSpn00h@PointedEars.de> Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: solani.org 1433953063 10795 eJwFwYEBACAEBMCVJN4bp8T+I3TnGwsVBof5+KQKmobzWK3jWZrGObIvsOJJo8EMGfpl2wcULRDE (10 Jun 2015 16:17:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:17:43 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2 X-User-ID: eJwVysERACEIBMGUQNhFw0GF/EM47znVA6PyhBN0NFpMZe7VsAFWB42Pb5b4Sl1ZlbNj4FDw15udrSZ9NXPbB0HYFY4= Cancel-Lock: sha1:c5J7tvBSRbdqisV/pESKbqCugTM= X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXQKCr52An/59gUgGHvkQha2p8YiXEa016nGBuO6xcum0m1zaBmo4F4H8KKBCY Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:28069 Joao Rodrigues wrote: > Thomas Lahn wrote: >> Joao Rodrigues wrote: >>> Thomas Lahn wrote: >>>> Joao Rodrigues wrote: >>>>> | This is the HTML rendering of Ecma-262 Edition 5.1, The ECMAScript >>>>> | Language Specification. >>>>> | >>>>> | The PDF rendering of this document is located at http://www.ecma-> | >>>>> | international.org/ecma-262/5.1/ECMA-262.pdf. >>>>> | >>>>> | The PDF version is the definitive specification. Any discrepancies >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>>> | between this HTML version and the PDF version are unintentional. >>>> >>>> AISB, the HTML version is _not_ the normative (or, as Jason Orendorff >>>> put >>>> it there, the "definitive") one. It never was. The PDF versions are >>>> those that the Ecma International General Assembly voted on, the >>>> *normative* ones. >>> Ecma does not affirm there is a normative or a non-normative version of >>> the specification. >> Yes, they do, in the very source that you are citing and quoting from. > > Why Ecma would need to affirm ECMA-262 whatever edition is a normative > specification? Of course it is, unless stated contrarily. No, if there are several versions of a technical specification, then it needs to be specified which of them are the normative ones. In this case, there is a PDF version and an HTML version (formerly, there have been PDF and Word document versions). AISB, the people responsible for making the Specification an industry standard, the members that participate in the Ecma International General Assembly, have not seen the HTML version and they have not voted on it because it was produced afterwards. So it cannot be the normative one. It follows, and has been stated by the author of the HTML version, that the definitive one is the PDF version (meaning that where the HTML version differs from the PDF version, the PDF version matters), which makes it also the normative one. > [nonsense] -- PointedEars FAQ: | SVN: Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.