Re: javascript 2.0 release???

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 11/30/2005 7:45 AM:
> Randy Webb wrote:
>
>
>>Wanting to know how the things "should be" ticking instead of how things
>>really are ticking has always been the only thing I found ECMA 262 good
>>for. The release of a newer setter of browsers that may or may not make
>>it obsolete doesn't matter. It is still only a theory of how things
>>should be instead of a true indication of how things really are.
>
>
> You are absolutely wrong.

Am I? 10+ years experience tell me I am not wrong. But rather have
proven to me that I am right.

> ECMAScript is specified to be extendable by conforming implementations and
> so far nothing else has been proven about implementations that call themselves
> ECMAScript compliant.

And I said nothing about the language being extended. I said that ECMA
is a good Theory about how things should be, not a reflection of how
things really are. If every UA followed the Specs to the letter, then
99% of questions could be answered with a "RTFM" but they do not follow
it to the letter so it can't be an indication of how things really are
but rather a Theory on how things should be.

-- 
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/