Re: javascript 2.0 release???

VK wrote:

> [...] I'm trying to resolve a confusion between "ECMAScript language"
> and "ECMAScript-compliant" while *some people* are tending to place an
> equal mark between them.

You have yet to understand that ECMAScript is by design like a
blueprint that allows conforming implementations of it to extend it.
 
> There were no browsers so far implementing ECMAScript language: means
> everything written in ECMA 262 and nothing less and *nothing more*.

So far that was not expected. ECMAScript Edition 1 is based upon
JavaScript 1.1 and JScript 1.0 which already had more features than
the specified ones which is why the "extensible" feature was already
specified in that first edition. In order to provide for backwards
compatibility among themselves, and in order for other browser vendors
to keep up with the competion against NN and IE, inevitably they had
to support features that were not specified in ECMAScript editions.

However, from <URL:http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/js/ecma/> ISTM now
that Opera's language implementation is pretty close to qualify as
"ECMA-262 (Edition 3) and nothing less and nothing more", maybe even
matching that. Lasse?

> And now it is too late I guess to expect that such implemetation will ever
> appear (unless someone decides to make a really retarded browser). So
> ECMA 262 will stay forever as an abstract model description.

No, you have not understood the role ECMAScript played in the history
of client-side scripting and its repercussions on today's conforming
language implementations. No surprise here, though, since it already
had become clear that you never read any edition of it (thoroughly).
 

PointedEars
Received on Sat Dec 3 04:33:27 2005