Will there be a suggested file suffix for es4?
brendan at mozilla.org
Tue Oct 3 13:08:51 PDT 2006
There are already variants of ECMA-262 languages that have suffixes
(.js, .as most conspicuous). Let a thousand suffixes bloom? I hope
not, and we finally have standard MIME types (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/
rfc4329.txt). Some insist on using .es, but .es is not likely to
become popular. ECMAScript was always an unwanted trade name that
sounds like a skin disease.
I predict .js will continue to be used, and content negotiation will
not depend on suffix or even MIME type. That is, tools will have to
know what versions they're dealing with, and servers will have to
know what version user agents support. This is the situation with
servers on the web already; it has been that way for 12 years. The
Accept: header is failure, it does not scale in bandwidth or over
time and (web) space; it does not let the server say what it prefers.
Is this an excessive hardship for tools, if not for servers?
Heretofore-reserved identifiers such as 'class', and such unreserved
novelties as 'use' pragmas, should be easy to discern.
When servers and clients chat, the MIME type's version= parameter
*should* be respected, at least for type="application/
Not all browsers respect it today. File bugs with those browsers you
care about that have open bug systems ;-).
On Oct 3, 2006, at 10:27 AM, P T Withington wrote:
> js1/es3 seems to have standardized on .js. Will there be a
> different suffix for js2/es4? Or will tools be expected to figure
> it out from the content of the file?
> Es4-discuss mailing list
> Es4-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the Es4-discuss