JavaScript (tm) hoax
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - Why does 1+1 equal 11? or How do I convert a string to a number? (2010-05-30)
Next: ANNC: qooxlisp 0.1: Driving Miss qooxdoo (from Common Lisp)
From: RobG on 30 May 2010 18:51 On May 31, 2:04 am, John G Harris <j...(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 30 May 2010 at 06:29:49, in comp.lang.javascript, RobG wrote: > >On May 30, 10:32 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> > >wrote: > >> Joe Nine wrote: > >> > VK wrote: > >> >> From my side I do reserve my rights to: > >> >> 1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript > >> >> instead of "wrong" term JavaScript. > > >> > You'll be busy countering Thomas pointedears daily claims that there is > >> > no javascript :) > > >> "javascript" !== "JavaScript" > > >In the realm of trademarks, I think you'll find that the two are > >identical. Capitalisation is irrelevant. > > On the other hand, the owners of the dBase II trademark got very upset > with anyone who got the capitals in the wrong place. They would see it as a brand recognition issue, which is different to trademark. Where a brand is concerned, colours, font and layout are very important. But that is covered by copyright, not trademark. A change in capitalisation is considered insufficient to differentiate trademarks, which is a good thing. -- Rob
From: John G Harris on 31 May 2010 11:31 On Sun, 30 May 2010 at 20:01:06, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >John G Harris wrote: <snip> >> ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language but not all of it, just as >> it's part of the JScript language but not all of it. > >Utter nonsense. <snip> "ECMAScript can provide core scripting capabilities for a variety of host environments, and therefore the core scripting language is specified in this document apart from any particular host environment." Explain why this appears in the standard. Or do you disagree with it? John -- John Harris
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 31 May 2010 11:45 John G Harris wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> John G Harris wrote: >>> ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language but not all of it, just as >>> it's part of the JScript language but not all of it. >> Utter nonsense. > <snip> > > "ECMAScript can provide core scripting capabilities for a variety of > host environments, and therefore the core scripting language is > specified in this document apart from any particular host environment." > > Explain why this appears in the standard. (Polite people say "please".) No, that's a red herring. > Or do you disagree with it? I am disagreeing with your misinterpretation of it. PointedEars -- Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are positively harmful for cross-browser scripting. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300dec7(a)news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
From: John G Harris on 2 Jun 2010 05:42 On Mon, 31 May 2010 at 17:45:53, in comp.lang.javascript, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >John G Harris wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> John G Harris wrote: >>>> ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language but not all of it, just as >>>> it's part of the JScript language but not all of it. >>> Utter nonsense. >> <snip> >> >> "ECMAScript can provide core scripting capabilities for a variety of >> host environments, and therefore the core scripting language is >> specified in this document apart from any particular host environment." >> >> Explain why this appears in the standard. > >(Polite people say "please".) No, that's a red herring. > >> Or do you disagree with it? > >I am disagreeing with your misinterpretation of it. a) "ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language". b) "the core scripting language is specified in this document" Clearly (b) logically implies (a). If you disagree you have to explain your reasoning otherwise no sensible person will believe you. John -- John Harris
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 2 Jun 2010 07:30
John G Harris wrote: > a) "ECMAScript is part of the JavaScript language". > > b) "the core scripting language is specified in this document" > > Clearly (b) logically implies (a). Most certainly it doesn't. Your logic is flawed. > If you disagree you have to explain your reasoning otherwise no sensible > person will believe you. JavaScript is an implementation of ECMAScript. It implements this Language Specification, and extends it as the Specification allows. That does not mean that ECMAScript is a part of JavaScript, that is just nonsense. If you prefer an analogy, a Ford Mustang is an implementation of the concept "car" (as in automobile). Most certainly, however, a car is not a part of a Ford Mustang. The cold-air induction & dual exhaust of the former's 2011 version (not that I am a car addict, the name just came to my mind, and Google was my friend) corresponds with, say, the Array comprehension and destructuring assignment of JavaScript (since version 1.7). HTH PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann |