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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #26797 > unrolled thread

Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript Charles Cossé <ccosse@gmail.com> - 2015-02-04 11:47 -0800
    Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-02-07 16:31 +0100
      Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-02-07 18:41 -0800
        Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-02-08 10:13 +0000
          Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-02-09 14:32 -0800
            Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-02-09 22:44 +0000
        Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-02-10 00:34 +0100
          Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-02-10 14:01 -0800
            Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-02-18 01:30 +0100
              Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 13:11 -0800
                Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2015-02-20 11:35 -0800
                  Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-02-21 01:56 +0100
                  Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-02-21 16:53 +0100
                Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-02-21 01:41 +0100
          Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-02-21 17:37 +0100

#26797 — Re: Definition of a script in JavaScript

Hi Stefan

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 12:36:20 PM UTC-7, Stefan Ram wrote:
>   I am trying to find this grammar rule. So far, I only found
>   this in the MDN:
> 
>       »The HTML <script> element is used to embed or reference an
>       executable script within an HTML or XHTML document.«
>       ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>   But were is the definition of »executable script«?
>   Where is the grammar rule for »executable script«?

The "definition" you refer to just means "valid javascript" (as opposed to html).  If the valid js is in a file.js then it doesn't require script tags.  If it's embedded in a file.html then it does.  If it's to be located in the <head> of a file.html then you also need to wrap the js section in <script> tags.   

Good luck -

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26816

Charles Cossé wrote:

> Hi Stefan

This is Usenet, not a chat.

> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 12:36:20 PM UTC-7, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>   I am trying to find this grammar rule. So far, I only found
>>   this in the MDN:
>> 
>>       »The HTML <script> element is used to embed or reference an
>>       executable script within an HTML or XHTML document.«
>>       ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>   But were is the definition of »executable script«?
>>   Where is the grammar rule for »executable script«?
> 
> The "definition" you refer to just means "valid javascript" (as opposed to
> html).

No, it does not.  And there is no “javascript”; certainly there is no such 
thing as “valid javascript” because ECMAScript implementations differ from 
one another.  At most, there are conforming ECMAScript implementations such 
that they agree in the core features as specified.  See my sig.

> If the valid js is in a file.js then it doesn't require script
> tags.

It MUST NOT contain SGML-based markup tags except in literals.  (Formerly, 
this included XML literals in *Mozilla* JavaScript, as part of its 
“ECMAScript for XML” [E4X] support.  Unfortunately, this support has been 
discontinued. [1])

> If it's embedded in a file.html then it does.

“Embed” is not the proper term here.  “Contained” is.

> If it's to be located in the <head> of a file.html

That would be a _“head” element_.

> then you also need to wrap the js section in <script> tags.

No, that would mean to wrap it in

  <script>

  <script>

But you need to "wrap" it in

  <script …>

  </script>

Elements are _not_ tags. [2][3]

[E4X] <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-357.htm>
[1] <https://developer.mozilla.org/de/docs/E4X>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.2.1>
[3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/dom.html#elements>
-- 
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26817

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [ ... ] [T]here is no "javascript"; certainly there is no such 
> thing as "valid javascript" [ ... ]

<http://i.imgur.com/5UhdL.png>

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26818

In article <59a1a1bf-a981-43d6-aa1d-2244f9ba5b4e@googlegroups.com>,
Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> [ ... ] [T]here is no "javascript"; certainly there is no such 
>> thing as "valid javascript" [ ... ]
>
><http://i.imgur.com/5UhdL.png>

D'ye have a nice picture of a pinhead with angels on it, and some fool
trying to count them? That would also be apt.

-- 
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. 
 In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
                                               - Paul Tomblin, ASR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26830

Tim Streater wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> [ ... ] [T]here is no "javascript"; certainly there is no such 
>>> thing as "valid javascript" [ ... ]
>>
>> <http://i.imgur.com/5UhdL.png>
> 
> D'ye have a nice picture of a pinhead with angels on it, and some fool
> trying to count them? That would also be apt.

I tried, but the damned things wouldn't hold still for the photograph.

We could also imagine a mad scientist with an evil laugh announcing,
"I've finally done it!  One hair, split into a million pieces.  BWAHAHA!"

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26831

In article <635b1d04-fd1b-452e-b971-d19b80e62178@googlegroups.com>,
Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Tim Streater wrote:
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> [ ... ] [T]here is no "javascript"; certainly there is no such 
>>>> thing as "valid javascript" [ ... ]
>>>
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/5UhdL.png>
>> 
>> D'ye have a nice picture of a pinhead with angels on it, and some fool
>> trying to count them? That would also be apt.
>
>I tried, but the damned things wouldn't hold still for the photograph.
>
>We could also imagine a mad scientist with an evil laugh announcing,
>"I've finally done it!  One hair, split into a million pieces.  BWAHAHA!"

That sums up pointyhead all right.

-- 
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. 
 In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
                                               - Paul Tomblin, ASR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26832

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> [ ... ] [T]here is no "javascript"; certainly there is no such 
>> thing as "valid javascript" [ ... ]
> 
> <http://i.imgur.com/5UhdL.png>

Isn't it worthwhile to hint at the uncommon spelling of the word
"javascript" (at least)?  Whether different ECMAScript implementations
are different languages or dialects or just implementations might be
debatable, but Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn elaborates on that in the
foreword of his ECMAScript Support Matrix[1], which he often links in
his posts (either the signature or the body), and which is a good read, IMO.

Anyhow, one might dislike Thomas' manner(s), but as far as I can assess
it, his technical competence wrt. ECMAScript/JavaScript programming is
very mature, and as such I consider him a valuable regular of this
newsgroup (as well as some others).  And even if one may regard his
quest ("there is no javascript") as futile, I don't consider Thomas'
delusional.

[1] <http://pointedears.de/scripts/test/es-matrix/#foreword>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26841

Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> [ ... ] [T]here is no "javascript"; certainly there is no such 
>>> thing as "valid javascript" [ ... ]
>> 
>> <http://i.imgur.com/5UhdL.png>
> 
> Isn't it worthwhile to hint at the uncommon spelling of the word
> "javascript" (at least)? [ ... ]

I don't think it is. Except when the issue under discussion touches on 
the differences between the various ES engines, the fact that these 
implementations of the specification from ECMA have unique names which 
might or might not be spelled with the trademarked "JavaScript" is worse 
than trivia. It's a positive distraction from more interesting matters 
and helps serve to drive off people who might end up being valuable 
members of the community. 

We use "calculus" without much of an issue to talk about the subject oft 
studied in mathematics curriculum, involving calculations of changing 
quantities. But really it covers the two very distinct fields of 
differential calculus and integral calculus. We have no issue with that. 
Moreover we have no issue using "calculus" to cover just these two 
fields, even though there are plenty of other fields of study whose very 
names include that same word: "Propositional Calculus", "Tensor 
Calculus", and "Lambda Calculus", to name a few. To quietly and 
occasionally critique the popular usage of this term would be either an 
endearing quirk or a minor personality flaw. To rail against it 
regularly is something different, something darker. That's how Thomas 
Lahn's responses to "javascript" come across to me. 

I can't remember who first posted that image in response to Mr. Lahn's 
folly. (Was it Stefan Weiss?) I've posted it myself several times now. 
It is not merely an attempt to insert some levity. It really is meant to 
show others, especially newcomers that not everyone here takes such 
ideas at all seriously.

I once tried to tease him with this

| I'm sorry, you seem to be in the wrong newsgroup.  Hereabouts we
| discuss Javascript.  If you're looking for comp.lang.ecmascript-
| implementations, it's next door.  And there's plenty of seating.

  - <f1d77ed8-ae96-454f-8ebd-409791470768@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
  
But of course that didn't go over well either.


> Anyhow, one might dislike Thomas' manner(s), but as far as I can assess
> it, his technical competence wrt. ECMAScript/JavaScript programming is
> very mature, and as such I consider him a valuable regular of this
> newsgroup (as well as some others).

I have a very mixed reaction to the value of his presence. I've been on 
USENET for 22 years this month. And I cut my teeth in a very contentious 
group, full of all sorts of interesting pedantry.  But I've never seen
a regular member of any ng as pedantic and condescending as Thomas Lahn.

There is no doubt that he has strong technical skills and deep knowledge.

But I would take one RobG, or one Stefan Weiss, over a hundred Thomas 
Lahns for their overall impact on the group.



> And even if one may regard his quest ("there is no javascript") as futile
> I don't consider Thomas' delusional.

How many people's language do you think he's changed in this many-year
quest of his?

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26865

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>
>> Isn't it worthwhile to hint at the uncommon spelling of the word
>> "javascript" (at least)? [ ... ]
> 
> I don't think it is. Except when the issue under discussion touches on 
> the differences between the various ES engines, the fact that these 
> implementations of the specification from ECMA have unique names which 
> might or might not be spelled with the trademarked "JavaScript" is worse 
> than trivia. It's a positive distraction from more interesting matters 
> and helps serve to drive off people who might end up being valuable 
> members of the community. 

On the other hand it may help to serve to convey some knowledge about
the issue at hand, if the readers care to look up relevant information.
 If they don't, that might be an indication of their general attitude
seeing Usenet (if they're even aware that they're posting to Usenet) as
a helpdesk.

> But I would take one RobG, or one Stefan Weiss, over a hundred Thomas 
> Lahns for their overall impact on the group.

Well, anybody is free to ignore Thomas' on Usenet.  I'm quite sure that
RobG and Stefan Weiss know how to configure a killfile, and it seems to
me there are (also) other reasons for them to not regularly involving in
discussions in this NG anymore.

> How many people's language do you think he's changed in this many-year
> quest of his?

IMO it is not so much about the language, but rather about the knowledge
that there is a language standard named ECMAScript, which does not cover
many widely used APIs, such as the DOM, which are standardized elsewhere
(or not).  Many beginners are not aware of that, and that is where much
confusion seems to arise.

Regarding the language: I'm mostly writing about "JavaScript" elsewhere
nowadays, because a not inconsiderable part of the audience is not even
aware of the difference between Java and JavaScript -- talking about
"ECMAScript" would certainly get them lost.  In a technical newsgroup
such as c.l.js, I *try* to express myself more specific, though.  But in
any case, I try to avoid doubtful umbrella terms such as "javascript",
which is unfortunately suggested by this NG's FAQ, even if I have not
seen it elsewhere in any serious literature.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26871

Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> Scott Sauyet wrote:
> 
>> Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it worthwhile to hint at the uncommon spelling of the word
>>> "javascript" (at least)? [ ... ]
>> 
>> I don't think it is. [ ... ]
>> It's a positive distraction from more interesting matters 
>> and helps serve to drive off people who might end up being valuable 
>> members of the community. 
> 
> On the other hand it may help to serve to convey some knowledge about
> the issue at hand, if the readers care to look up relevant information.

There are certainly times when such a discussion would be warranted.  
But to bring it up when it has no bearing on the subject at hand is 
mere pedantry, and to me smacks of bullying.


>> But I would take one RobG, or one Stefan Weiss, over a hundred Thomas 
>> Lahns for their overall impact on the group.
> 
> Well, anybody is free to ignore Thomas' on Usenet.  I'm quite sure that
> RobG and Stefan Weiss know how to configure a killfile, and it seems to
> me there are (also) other reasons for them to not regularly involving in
> discussions in this NG anymore.

I wasn't trying to suggest that Mr. Lahn had run them out of the group.
These are two people who've been regular posters here, two with very
different styles, both with clearly deep knowledge of the subject, yet
not at the level of a Richard Cornford or a Thomas Lahn.  But I believe
both of them have had an entirely salubrious effect on c.l.js.  I simply
think the effect of Thomas Lahn is far more mixed.  BTW, both have posted
within the last ten weeks or so; they're not entirely gone.

 
> Regarding the language: I'm mostly writing about "JavaScript" elsewhere
> nowadays, because a not inconsiderable part of the audience is not even
> aware of the difference between Java and JavaScript -- talking about
> "ECMAScript" would certainly get them lost.  [ ... ] 

ACK.  And I talk about "Javascript" for a similar reason.  I choose not
to use the trademarked name unless discussing the specific trademarked
implementation, but I use something close enough that it causes no
significant confusion.  But I quite admit that this is an unusual stand.

  -- Scott

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26879

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 3:11:38 PM UTC-6, Scott Sauyet wrote:

> ACK.  And I talk about "Javascript" for a similar reason.  I choose not
> to use the trademarked name unless discussing the specific trademarked
> implementation, but I use something close enough that it causes no
> significant confusion.  But I quite admit that this is an unusual stand.

Use "JS" and it will slip through the Lahn filter.

Though TBH, I see as much complaining about PEs posts as I see his on corrections, so take that for what it's worth. Either way, the S/N ratio is wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26881

Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

> Though TBH, I see as much complaining about PEs posts as I see his on
> corrections, so take that for what it's worth. Either way, the S/N
> ratio is wrong.

I have to agree.  However, excluding these posts doesn't seem to improve
the signal-to-noise-ratio on c.l.js, unfortunately.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26882

Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

> Use "JS" and it will slip through the Lahn filter.

Ignorance must be bliss.  It turns out so healthy and freetime-saving for me 
to hide Google Groups postings by default…

-- 
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26880

Scott Sauyet wrote:

> Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>
>> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>>
>>> But I would take one RobG, or one Stefan Weiss, over a hundred Thomas 
>>> Lahns for their overall impact on the group.
>>
>> Well, anybody is free to ignore Thomas' on Usenet.  I'm quite sure that
>> RobG and Stefan Weiss know how to configure a killfile, and it seems to
>> me there are (also) other reasons for them to not regularly involving in
>> discussions in this NG anymore.
> 
> I wasn't trying to suggest that Mr. Lahn had run them out of the group.

Sorry -- I had misunderstood you there.

> These are two people who've been regular posters here, two with very
> different styles, both with clearly deep knowledge of the subject, yet
> not at the level of a Richard Cornford or a Thomas Lahn.  But I believe
> both of them have had an entirely salubrious effect on c.l.js.  I simply
> think the effect of Thomas Lahn is far more mixed. [ ... ]

I have to agree, considering the reactions of many.

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#26883

Christoph M. Becker wrote:

> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> [ ... ] [T]here is no "javascript"; certainly there is no such
>>> thing as "valid javascript" [ ... ]
>> 
>> <http://i.imgur.com/5UhdL.png>
> 
> Isn't it worthwhile to hint at the uncommon spelling of the word
> "javascript" (at least)?

The point here is that there cannot be a universally agreed definition as to 
what constitutes “valid javascript” because even if we accept the fact that 
”javascript” stands in for “ECMAScript implementations” (which I recommend 
against because of ambiguity), those implementations *differ*:

That which is *syntactically* valid (i.e. compiles) in one implementation 
does not need to be in another (as a case in point, we discussed the use of 
“`…`” for template strings in Mozilla JavaScript – not supported elsewhere 
[as of yet]; there are many other such examples).

So the notion of “valid javascript” can only be called nonsense, employed 
only by the un(der)informed or blatantly ignorant.

-- 
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web