Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <1607168.6DMhTUkglM@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 20:53:58 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <1868da91-d142-49ee-8b09-27c0983c1af4@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <8192572.z9YG5XmbkK@PointedEars.de> Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 51 NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Dec 2012 20:53:59 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: bd56ad2e.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=5FXHbjGlIGdEB;5>eE0T7mMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF On 12/7/2012 7:46 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> The solution I see to this problem at this point is very simple and I >> think very logical: Remove all those misleading, superfluous occurrences >> of “javascript” from the FAQ, and replace that with a *correct*, >> *unambiguous*, >> *well-defined* umbrella term *only if necessary for clarification*. This >> newsgroup and this FAQ is about a certain topic, which could be subsumed >> as "ECMAScript implementations (such as JavaScript and JScript) and their >> applications (such as DOMs)" (although the newsgroup is named >> differently, for *historical* as well as practical reasons), and unless a >> specific implementation needs to be mentioned or the ubiquity of a >> feature needs to be emphasized, no umbrella term needs to be used at all. > > I have three objections to that strategy: > > 1. The train has left the station. "JavaScript" is the name of the > language, in ordinary discourse among programmers, Wikipedia articles, > and numerous books. Most programmers are incompetent; as a result, Wikipedia articles and most books about this topic are full of rather stupid mistakes. The ad-hoc invented term “javascript” (or “Javascript”) is being used whereever it *seems* to fit, be it meaning JavaScript[tm], JScript, ECMAScript, or the DOM and other APIs. It gives the reader the illusion of a single entity. Which is actually _not_ helping beginners. > 2. Writing a FAQ without using a simple noun to refer to its subject is > going to result in very unnatural, unreadable prose, probably with > excessive use of the passive voice. I do not think so. > 3. It would be good for search engines to see the FAQ as being primarily > about JavaScript, and to return hits on the FAQ for questions it > answers. The best way of getting that effect is to use "JavaScript" > throughout. There are better ways to ensure good positioning in search results than excessive repetition of an ad-hoc invented ambiguous term in arbitrary context. PointedEars -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16