Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #31470

Re: n00b considering Java Script

Show key headers only | View raw

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!”.
 
> In addition to the DOM itself, the W3 also specifies how the DOM
> interfaces are to be implemented in ECMAScript:
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Core/ecma-script-binding.html>

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.oMNUckLgyt@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).

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

n00b considering Java Script Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 14:09 +0000
  Re: n00b considering Java Script WaltS <thalionusa@REMOVEaim.com> - 2016-09-25 11:22 -0400
    Re: n00b considering Java Script Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-25 16:12 +0000
      Re: n00b considering Java Script WaltS <thalionusa@REMOVEaim.com> - 2016-09-25 12:33 -0400
    Re: n00b considering Java Script Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-25 18:23 +0200
      Re: n00b considering Java Script WaltS <thalionusa@REMOVEaim.com> - 2016-09-25 12:32 -0400
        Re: n00b considering Java Script Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-09-25 19:36 +0100
          Re: n00b considering Java Script WaltS <thalionusa@REMOVEaim.com> - 2016-09-25 16:25 -0400
        Re: n00b considering Java Script Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-25 21:23 +0200
          Re: n00b considering Java Script John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-09-26 10:28 +0100
      Re: n00b considering Java Script John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-09-26 10:22 +0100
      Re: n00b considering Java Script Andreas Bergmaier <andber93@web.de> - 2016-09-26 23:10 +0200
        Re: n00b considering Java Script Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:27 +0200
          Re: n00b considering Java Script Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:43 +0200
  Re: n00b considering Java Script Gregor Kofler <usenet@gregorkofler.com> - 2016-09-25 23:57 +0200
  Re: n00b considering Java Script Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2016-09-25 22:47 +0000
    Re: n00b considering Java Script Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-09-26 01:00 +0000
    Re: n00b considering Java Script Andreas Bergmaier <andber93@web.de> - 2016-09-26 23:22 +0200
      Re: n00b considering Java Script Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-09-27 08:18 +0200
        Re: n00b considering Java Script John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2016-09-27 19:12 +0100
      Re: n00b considering Java Script Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2016-09-30 03:14 +0000

csiph-web