JavaScript 2015?

Alexandre Morgaut Alexandre.Morgaut at
Fri Jan 23 01:20:38 PST 2015

It may change, but based on the current cover, it looks like Booth ES6 and ECMAScript 2015 names could be right to use

The cover says:

- "Standard ECMA-262"
- "6th edition / Draft January 15, 2015"
- "ECMAScript 2015 Language Specification"

If an edition number is maintained, then anyone could either say ES6 or ES2015
and next anyone could say ES7 or ES2016

Now, I don't know if you intend to let "6th edition" in this form or switch it for "2015 edition" in some next publications

Until this draft publication people saw in first place the edition number (6) and then only the date, only people concerned by history looked at the date to check the technology context
From now, they would first see the year number, then those who care could also see the edition number (if it remains this way)

It could be interesting and look agile to have a stable edition per year, but I'm pretty sure no one will care if a year is missing
If you look at SQL editions names which are year based, many years are missing
Note that people (me included) often mentioned SQL editions as SQL1 (86-87-89) vs SQL2 (92) vs SQL3 (99-2000), but this numbering finally disappeared

Regarding subversions for patches (as 3.1, 5.1), you may like it or not but switching to years does not forbid that
Some 4D versions where called 2004.1, 2004.2, .... and some may have been published after 2004 but were still minor revisions of the 2004 version

About the language, name for wide communication, ECMAScript, and JavaScript are as of today often interchangeable (still depending of their usage context)
People start to be more and more educated about ECMAScript, but most communications, hashtags, user groups, search keywords, ... are using still JavaScript or JS
Many Books have JavaScript in their title even if it is trademarked by Oracle (and before by Sun)
My company only used JS instead of JavaScript in a conference name because it is in first place a database company as Oracle is (but in a more modest size),
so trademark may there have been source of issue


On Jan 23, 2015, at 3:58 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at<mailto:allen at>> wrote:

On Jan 22, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:

Domenic Denicola wrote:
I believe the cutover was decided in the September 25 meeting.

I must have missed it if so -- do the notes record it?

bassed upon that I confirmed with Istvan that Ecma was ok with a document title change

However, I delayed actually change the cover page until the first draft release in 2015

That change was announced in the release notes:

And highly visible to anybody who looks at the front cover:<>


[cid:imagefa2301.JPG at 9d06c775.4d92698a]
Alexandre Morgaut
Wakanda Community Manager
Email : Alexandre.Morgaut at<mailto:Alexandre.Morgaut at>
Web :<>

60, rue d'Alsace
92110 Clichy - France
Standard :      +33 1 40 87 92 00

[cid:image7b7bae.BMP at 0959e748.4aa394b0]<>

es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at<mailto:es-discuss at>

Alexandre Morgaut

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: imagefa2301.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18267 bytes
Desc: imagefa2301.JPG
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image7b7bae.BMP
Type: image/bmp
Size: 140694 bytes
Desc: image7b7bae.BMP
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list