Cedric at OpenDomain.Org
Tue Oct 30 09:56:31 PDT 2007
Please note that Microsoft HAS responded on my blog (with a reply from
Brendon and myself)
PLEASE note: Although the domain is OpenAjax.Com, we are NOT part of the
Open Ajax Alliance (although I am the contributor or Openajax.Org to Jon
I do not have any advertising or spam on my site, so please feel free to
visit and comment
On 10/30/2007, "Chris Pine" <chrispi at opera.com> wrote:
>> so sorry I don't buy the "ECMAScript must change its name"
>No, of course not. Nevermind that the scope of TG1 is "to standardize
>the syntax and semantics of a general purpose, cross platform,
>vendor-neutral dynamic scripting language called ECMAScript":
>I don't think that anyone believes there is honest concern that the name
>of the language might confuse people about which language they are
>getting. ES3 programs will continue to work.
>The push to change the name is a push to kill the ES4 proposal. It's
>First you change the name. Then you admit it's a new language, and thus
>a new spec. Incompatibilities with ES3 inevitably follow, in order to
>incompatibly fix bugs (something we'd all like to do, but not at the
>expense of breaking the web). Browser vendors must then ship two
>runtimes to support the new language (impossible on small devices),
>while no work is required to truthfully claim "our browser has full
>ecmascript support". So small devices don't get it, IE doesn't do it,
>and ES4 as proposed dies.
>So I don't buy it either: I don't believe that anyone arguing to change
>the name thinks the language would thus succeed. This rose, by any
>other name, would not be smelled at all.
>Es4-discuss mailing list
>Es4-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the Es4-discuss