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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #22050 > unrolled thread

FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19)

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

Contents

  FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) "FAQ server" <javascript@dotinternet.be> - 2013-11-19 00:00 +0000
    Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) dhtml <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com> - 2013-11-20 21:59 -0800
      Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-11-21 12:21 +0100
        Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-21 13:56 +0100
      Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2013-11-21 08:05 -0800
        Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) Ry Nohryb <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> - 2013-11-25 23:52 -0800
          Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2013-11-26 12:26 +0200
          Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-27 15:26 +0000
            Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2013-11-27 13:36 -0800
              Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-28 00:03 +0200
                Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-11-28 00:49 +0100
                Re: FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19) Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2013-11-29 22:52 -0200

#22050 — FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript? (2013-11-19)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What is ECMAScript?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ECMA-262 [ref 1]
is the international standard that current language implementations
(JavaScriptâ„¢, JScript etc.) are based on.

ECMA-262 [ref 2]
defines the language Syntax, Types, Keywords, Operators, and built-in
objects. The ECMAScript specification is the reference to determine the
expected behavior of a program. ECMAScript does not define any host
objects, such as `document`, `window`, or `ActiveXObject`.

ECMA-327 defines the Compact Profile of ECMAScript by
describing the features from ECMA 262 that may be omitted in some
resource-constrained environments.
<URL: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-327.htm>

The most widely supported edition of ECMA-262 is the 3rd edition (1999).
There is fair support for this edition in JScript 5.5+ (buggy) and good
support JavaScript 1.5.

The term "javascript" is used as a common name for all dialects of ECMAScript.

References:
-----------

[1] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
[2] http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm


The complete comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at
http://jibbering.com/faq/

-- 

The sendings of these daily posts are proficiently hosted
by http://www.pair.com.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#22091

On Monday, November 18, 2013 4:00:00 PM UTC-8, FAQ server wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

///

> (JavaScriptâ„¢, JScript etc.) are based on.

JavaScriptâ„¢

Encoding!

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

#22094

dhtml wrote:

> On Monday, November 18, 2013 4:00:00 PM UTC-8, FAQ server wrote:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ///
> 
>> (JavaScriptâ„¢, JScript etc.) are based on.
> 
> JavaScriptâ„¢
> 
> Encoding!

Indeed, the message body is encoded as UTF-8, but the Content-Type
header field is:

  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Can anybody fix this?

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#22095

Christoph Michael Becker wrote:

> dhtml wrote:
>> On Monday, November 18, 2013 4:00:00 PM UTC-8, FAQ server wrote:
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> ///
>> 
>>> (JavaScriptâ„¢, JScript etc.) are based on.
>> 
>> JavaScriptâ„¢
>> 
>> Encoding!
> 
> Indeed, the message body is encoded as UTF-8, but the Content-Type
> header field is:
> 
>   Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Can anybody fix this?

The fix in this case is that the person responsible for posting these 
obsolete, badly formatted FAQ entries to stop posting them, as it has been 
frequently requested.

That would open the opportunity for posting, on a schedule that corresponds 
with the actual newsgroup traffic, certainly in a standards-compliant and 
well-formatted way, FAQ entries that are actually updated, and whose last-
modified date actually corresponds with the date in the Subject header field 
value (as it is customary):

<http://PointedEars.de/faq>
 
-- 
PointedEars, ed.

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#22100

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:59:03 PM UTC-6, dhtml wrote:

> JavaScriptâ„¢

There is no "JavaScriptâ„¢" ;)

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

#22186

On Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:05:14 PM UTC+1, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> 
> There is no "JavaScriptâ„¢" ;)

The term "JavaScriptâ„¢" is used as a common name for all dialects of ECMAScript.

-- 
( Jorge )();

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

#22187

Ry Nohryb <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> writes:
> On Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:05:14 PM UTC+1, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

>> There is no "JavaScriptâ„¢" ;)

> The term "JavaScriptâ„¢" is used as a common name for all dialects of
> ECMAScript.

ITYM dialects of ECMAScriptâ„¢

-- 
Jukka Lahtinen

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

#22196

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:52:02 -0800 (PST), Ry Nohryb
<jorge@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:05:14 PM UTC+1, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>> 
>> There is no "JavaScriptâ„¢" ;)
>
>The term "JavaScriptâ„¢" is used as a common name for all dialects of ECMAScript.

Have you forgotten that ECMAScript is the *core* language, not the
whole of JavaScript, JScript, etc.

  John

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

#22198

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:26:20 AM UTC-6, John Harris wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:52:02 -0800 (PST), Ry Nohryb
> 
> <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:05:14 PM UTC+1, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> >> 
> >> There is no "JavaScriptâ„¢" ;)
> >
> >The term "JavaScriptâ„¢" is used as a common name for all dialects of ECMAScript.
> 
> Have you forgotten that ECMAScript is the *core* language, not the
> whole of JavaScript, JScript, etc.

You totally missed the joke here.

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

#22199

2013-11-27 23:36, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:26:20 AM UTC-6, John Harris wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:52:02 -0800 (PST), Ry Nohryb
>>
>> <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:05:14 PM UTC+1, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is no "JavaScriptâ„¢" ;)
>>>
>>> The term "JavaScriptâ„¢" is used as a common name for all dialects of ECMAScript.
>>
>> Have you forgotten that ECMAScript is the *core* language, not the
>> whole of JavaScript, JScript, etc.
>
> You totally missed the joke here.

There was no joke, really.

There was some fun in saying that the term “JavaScriptâ„¢” is used as a 
common name for all dialects of ECMAScript„¢.

But it was poor joke. There are no dialects of ECMAScript. ECMAScript is 
a standard. Either you comply to a standard, or you don’t. “Dialects” 
just don’t fit in.

In reality, here on Earth, “JavaScript” is a vague term used to describe 
a family of programming languages, and “ECMAScript” is a (foolishly 
named, but otherwise mostly successful) attempt at standardizing JavaScript.

If you present ECMAScript is primary and actual implementations as 
“dialects”, it’s upside-down wishful thinking that just confuses you, 
and possibly some other people.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

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

#22202

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> 2013-11-27 23:36, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:26:20 AM UTC-6, John Harris wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:52:02 -0800 (PST), Ry Nohryb
>>>
>>> <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:05:14 PM UTC+1, Michael Haufe (TNO)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no "JavaScriptâ„¢" ;)
>>>>
>>>> The term "JavaScriptâ„¢" is used as a common name for all dialects
>>>> of ECMAScript.
>>>
>>> Have you forgotten that ECMAScript is the *core* language, not the
>>> whole of JavaScript, JScript, etc.
>>
>> You totally missed the joke here.
> 
> There was no joke, really.
> 
> There was some fun in saying that the term “JavaScriptâ„¢” is used as a
> common name for all dialects of ECMAScript„¢.
> 
> But it was poor joke. There are no dialects of ECMAScript. ECMAScript is
> a standard. Either you comply to a standard, or you don’t. “Dialects”
> just don’t fit in.
>
> In reality, here on Earth, “JavaScript” is a vague term used to describe
> a family of programming languages, and “ECMAScript” is a (foolishly
> named, but otherwise mostly successful) attempt at standardizing
> JavaScript.
> 
> If you present ECMAScript is primary and actual implementations as
> “dialects”, it’s upside-down wishful thinking that just confuses you,
> and possibly some other people.

It was a pun on a statement in this NG's FAQ[1]:

| The term "javascript" is used as a common name for all dialects of
| ECMAScript.

Apparently, the FAQ needs maintenance.

[1] <http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#ecma>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

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

#22218

On 27/11/2013 20:03, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2013-11-27 23:36, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:26:20 AM UTC-6, John Harris wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 23:52:02 -0800 (PST), Ry Nohryb
>>>
>>> <jo...@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, November 21, 2013 5:05:14 PM UTC+1, Michael Haufe (TNO)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no "JavaScriptâ„¢" ;)
>>>>
>>>> The term "JavaScriptâ„¢" is used as a common name for all dialects
>>>> of ECMAScript.
>>>
>>> Have you forgotten that ECMAScript is the *core* language, not the
>>> whole of JavaScript, JScript, etc.
>>
>> You totally missed the joke here.
>
> There was no joke, really.
>
> There was some fun in saying that the term “JavaScriptâ„¢” is used as a
> common name for all dialects of ECMAScript„¢.
>
> But it was poor joke. There are no dialects of ECMAScript. ECMAScript is
> a standard. Either you comply to a standard, or you don’t. “Dialects”
> just don’t fit in.
>
> In reality, here on Earth, “JavaScript” is a vague term used to describe
> a family of programming languages, and “ECMAScript” is a (foolishly
> named, but otherwise mostly successful) attempt at standardizing
> JavaScript.
>
> If you present ECMAScript is primary and actual implementations as
> “dialects”, it’s upside-down wishful thinking that just confuses you,
> and possibly some other people.
>

In the Introduction of the 5.1 Edition / June 2011 of the ECMAScript 
Language Specification, it is written: "This Ecma Standard is based on 
several originating technologies, the most well known being JavaScript 
(Netscape) and JScript (Microsoft)."

As JavaScript and JScript came first, it is illogical to say they are 
dialects or implementations of ECMAScript. BTW, for legal reasons, Ecma 
International could not use the name “JavaScript” for its standard.

I agree with John Harris that "ECMAScript is the *core* language, not 
the whole of JavaScript, JScript, etc."

-- 
Joao Rodrigues

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web