EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

[Richard Cornford]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

Conrad Lender wrote:

On 2008-10-07 23:05, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

<snip

>For the casual reader, IMHO, ISO uses a nicer font.
>For the programmer, ISO has has some at least of the ECMA
>bugs fixed. For the present purpose, the "auxiliary" text
>differs between the two, and is as much a source of guidance
>as the core text.

>
Thank you. Apart from the nicer font, would those "bug fixes"
be the ECMA-262 errata, or did they change the language in any
way, to remove what they considered bugs?

One of the - for - statement algorithms in ECMA 262 3rd Ed. is obviously
wrong (section 12.6.3, second algorithm, step 7 (should go to step 17
instead of 14)). That has been corrected in the ISO version, but the
original was sufficiently obviously wrong that it was never implemented
in that way so the correction fixes a bug in the original specification
and nothing else. Apart form that the ISO version has a few minor
modifications to a very few algorithms along the lines of splitting a
single step up into 2 where previously two actions were specified in the
single step.

And what do the "auxiliary" texts contain? I still balk at
paying CHF 230,- for something that should be free and
open and accessible to all;

Ironically the print/binding quality of ISO specifications is very poor,
so if you are going to pay form one get it in electronic form and print
your own, then you will be able to print another when the first falls
apart.

but I would very much like to know if
they've added anything substantial to the specification.

<snip>

Nothing.

Richard.

[John W Kennedy]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

criterium

That's "criterion" . It's Greek, not Latin.


--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins

[Conrad Lender]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

On 2008-10-08 01:55, Richard Cornford wrote:

Conrad Lender wrote:

>With all due respect, but if "JavaScript " is a trademark, then
>"Javascript " is protected as well

>
Your point being? (Given that I am not proposing not using "JavaScript "
because it is a trademark name but rather using it only to identify the
implementation to which the trademark name belongs.)

I'm sorry, I may have misread you. I thought you were proposing
"javascript " (which of course is also trademark protected) as an
umbrella for this group of languages.

Legalities aside, I _personally_ have no objections against using (any
spelling of) JavaScript to refer to the group of implementations that
the FAQ readers are dealing with every day. Yes, it's ambiguous, because
"JavaScript " also refers to a specific implementation, as we know, but
that's the way that it's (incorrectly, or rather imprecisely) come to be
used, and it's too late for the pebbles to vote about that. The _FAQ_
can be more specific in some areas, like for instance when it says:

| EcmaScript numbers are represented in binary as IEEE-754 (IEC 559)
| Doubles, with a resolution of 53 bits [...]

Perfect use of EcmaScript here (except that I'd rather have it spelled
ECMAScript). On the other hand, there are topics like:

| How can I see in JavaScript if a web browser accepts cookies?

How should that be spelled then? "ECMAScript " doesn't apply,
"JavaScript " would (as you say) be too specific, so we use "javascript "?

[..]

>Writing it all-lowercase, as you suggested, would not help
>the situation -

>
Except that it already does.
>

>all languages that I can think of are proper nouns and
>written with capital initial letters; making "javascript " the
>only exception would only cause more confusion.

>
How?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of another programming language
that's spelled all lowercase, where that way of spelling isn't just a
gimmick but an important distinction from a term with a different
meaning. The only related example that occurs to me is
"Only perl can parse Perl"
where the former is the interpreter, and the latter is the language. But
that was intended as more tongue in cheek that serious, and is partly
directed against people who would spell the language PERL.

In any case, distinctions based on capitalization are (IMO) just asking
for trouble.

[..]

>At the very least the FAQ could (should) mention which names
>are trademarked.

>
I don't see that as adding anything useful, given that it already states
what JavaScript, JScript and ECMAScript are.

Actually, I'm not sure that it does. I admit, I've never read it
top-to-bottom, but by plain searching I couldn't find a definition of
JavaScript in the clj FAQ. Funny that :)

....still think it would be worth at least a footnote to say who owns the
respective trademarks on those terms. But you're right, it's not that
important.


- Conrad

[dhtml]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

Richard Cornford wrote:

On Oct 7, 3:04 am, dhtml wrote:

>I made a change to the FAQ of javascript to EcmaScript.

>
And how is that supposed to help?
>

>I got some feedback that the newsgroup is CLJ and the
>language is commonly referred to as JavaScript. Therefore,
>the word in the FAQ should be JavaScript.

>
Absolutely not. It is necessarily to be able to differentiate between
the ECMAScript implementation that has a name with that trademark
capitalisation and the general category of ECMAScript implementations .

That's why I made the change. It sounds like you opine that by not
camel-casing, the distinction will be clear that "javascript " is a
non-proper noun, used in the general sense, and "JavaScript " means
Mozilla's implementation. Is this what you meant?

As the latter is called "javascript " (with or without capitalisation)
but the former is named "JavaScript " (with the specific
capitalisation) it makes most sense to differentiate between the two
by employing alternative capitalisation. This has been discussed
before (and at length) and the wording employed in the FAQ represented
the consensus at the time.
>

I don't know that the latter (EMCAScript in general) is more commonly
written "javascript " than "JavaScript ". It's not pronounced any
differently. I think at work, it's always called "JavaScript ". I never
had anybody ask me if I "Checked that ecmascript file in?" From what I
notice, it's written capitalized and camel cased.

>So I'm asking: what should I use in the FAQ?

>
No.

What do you mean "No"?

>

>Technically, 'JavaScript' is Mozilla's implementation of
>Ecma-262.

>
And a Trademark name, as is "JScript".
>

>So - JavaScript or ECMAScript.

>
Neither.
>

>The second question is: where ECMAScript is used, should it be
>'ECMAScript' or 'EcmaScript'?

>
ECMAScript.
>

>Brendan always calls it "Ecma" and "Ecma TC3". Others do, too.

>
Always? URL (or any evidence substantiating that claim)?
>

I can't find any more links at the moment.

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html

http://ajaxian.com/archives/brendan-eich-javascript-2-and-the-future-of-the-web

>Technically, 'ECMAScript' is more official, though it's a
>little easier to read and type camel case than all-caps.

>
Typing ease is hardly an excuse, but use "javascript " (capitalised if
it appears at the beginning of a sentence) and it is likely that
readers will sufficiently understand what is being referred to.

It's still easier to read.

>

>What do you want in the FAQ: JavaScript, EcmaScript,
>or ECMAScript?

>
Javascript.

There still is not a strong consensus on what should be used throughout.

"EcmaScript " should be changed to "ECMAScript ", if used.

>
Richard.

[dhtml]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

Conrad Lender wrote:

On 2008-10-07 21:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>Conrad Lender wrote:

>>Agree about that. JavaScript is what it's generally know as, and the
>>distinction between the language standard and the names of the various
>>implementatio ns is less important than letting people know what we're
>>talking about.

>
premise A) Most people know this language group only as "JavaScript ".
premise B) Non-experts have no clear idea of what ECMAScript is.
premise C) The FAQ is intended for non-experts.
>
hypothesis: Letting non-experts know we're talking about what they call
JavaScript is more important than only talking about ECMAScript all the
time.
>
corollary 1: ... escpecially when _we_ _ourselves_ are so inconsistent
with our use of "JavaScript ".
corollary 2: ... escpecially when the FAQ deals mostly with problems
that are beyond the scope of ECMAScript.
corollary 3: Defining the terms in the FAQ is still a Good Thing.
>

It might be useful to have an explanation for JavaScript meaning one of
two things:
1) Loosely, ECMAScript and browser scripting
2) Mozilla's implementation of ECMAScript

>
>
- Conrad

[RobG]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

On Oct 8, 12:46 pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@g mail.comwrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

On Oct 7, 3:04 am, dhtml wrote:

[...]

What do you want in the FAQ: JavaScript, EcmaScript,
or ECMAScript?

>

Javascript.

>
There still is not a strong consensus on what should be used throughout.

I think the consensus is pretty strong that ECMAScript should only be
used when referring specifically to the standard, otherwise use
javascript (or Javascript at the begining of sentences). When
referring to specific implementations , make it clear such as
"Mozilla's JavaScript" or "Opera's JavasScript" so there is no doubt.

Including the name of the implementation itself is probably only
useful for JScript.

"EcmaScript " should be changed to "ECMAScript ", if used.

Yes.

FAQ 2.5 does a reasonable job of describing ECMAScript and ECMA 262
(though I would move the link to the PDF to the bottom of the entry).
Why not use ECMA-262 to make it clear that the reference is to the
specification and not the language in general? It should also be
possible to link to FAQ 2.5 wherever ECMA-262 is used.

e.g. FAQ 4.2 could read:

"ECMA-262 specifies that numbers are represented..."


--
Rob

[dhtml]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

RobG wrote:

On Oct 8, 12:46 pm, dhtml <dhtmlkitc...@g mail.comwrote:

>Richard Cornford wrote:

>>On Oct 7, 3:04 am, dhtml wrote:

[...]

>>>What do you want in the FAQ: JavaScript, EcmaScript,
>>>or ECMAScript?
>>Javascript.

>There still is not a strong consensus on what should be used throughout.

>
I think the consensus is pretty strong that ECMAScript should only be
used when referring specifically to the standard, otherwise use
javascript (or Javascript at the begining of sentences). When
referring to specific implementations , make it clear such as
"Mozilla's JavaScript" or "Opera's JavasScript" so there is no doubt.
>
Including the name of the implementation itself is probably only
useful for JScript.
>
>

>"EcmaScript " should be changed to "ECMAScript ", if used.

>
Yes.

OK.

>
FAQ 2.5 does a reasonable job of describing ECMAScript and ECMA 262
(though I would move the link to the PDF to the bottom of the entry).
Why not use ECMA-262 to make it clear that the reference is to the
specification and not the language in general? It should also be
possible to link to FAQ 2.5 wherever ECMA-262 is used.
>

OK. There's a definition of what JScript and JavaScript are (camel
cased), but then using javascript (LC) throughout. If javascript is
going to be used as such, there should be at least a sentence that
explains it.

I still think that there are cases where it's useful to differentiate
between the two. Specifically, when talking about the language itself.
For example:-

| Object models (OMs) are not part of the ECMAScript language: they
| are provided by the host to allow ECMAScript (or other scripting
| language) to communicate with the host. An object model may allow
| ECMAScript to access a file system, or control a nuclear power
| station. The most commonly used object models via ECMAScript are
| provided by Active Server Pages, Server Side JavaScript, and the
| Windows Script Host. The most common of all is the
| Document Object Model (DOM) provided by web browsers. Other
| document types such as SVG also define scriptable DOMs, mostly as
| extensions of the W3C Core DOM specification designed for use
| with XML documents.


By using ECMAScript (and not "javascript " in the above, it's clear that
we're not talking about "Client Side JavaScript," especially considering
that there is mention of "server side JavaScript" there.


Garrett

e.g. FAQ 4.2 could read:
>
"ECMA-262 specifies that numbers are represented..."
>
>
--
Rob

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

John W Kennedy wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>criterium

>
That's "criterion" . It's Greek, not Latin.

Thanks, I knew that once.


PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8 300dec7@news.de mon.co.uk>

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

Conrad Lender wrote:

Disclaimer: I've been working with patent attorneys for the last 5+

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

years, and while this definitely does not make me an expert in any way,

^^^^^

it did give me a pretty good general idea about the legal situation.
[...]
My point is that it would be unwise to make an important distinction
between JavaScript, Javascript, and javascript, just based on the
capitalization. That would be extremely confusing, especially for
newcomers. Writing it all-lowercase, as you suggested, would not help
the situation - all languages that I can think of are proper nouns and
written with capital initial letters; making "javascript " the only
exception would only cause more confusion.

ACK.

Like it or not, JavaScript has become a pars pro toto expression; in
technical discussions we will keep the distinction between standard and
implementations , but in practical usage (and even in this group)
"JavaScript " is almost generally used as "all languages/implementations
derived from ECMAScript" (there are a few exceptions, such as
"ActionScript") .

By whom?

One way to make the distinction clearer in the FAQ would be to use
JavaScript® and JScript® for trademarked names.

That would be wrong, because a trademark is not necessarily a Registered
Trademark (registered with the USPTO). (You of all people should know this,
no?)

(tm)/[tm] or its Unicode version would technically be OK, however I doubt
that the FAQ would become better legible or understandable through this.
"ECMAScript " and "ECMAScript implementation" are technically correct when
referring to specified (and implemented) features, and does not cause any
difficulties for the reader -- the issue aside that the reader would have to
and want to understand what ECMAScript and ECMAScript implementations are,
which would be a Good Thing.

At the very least the FAQ could (should) mention which names are trademarked.

ACK. That should be done (using one of the aforementioned markings) in the
FAQ section that already explains (shortly) what JavaScript and JScript are.


PointedEars
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8 300dec7@news.de mon.co.uk>

[Conrad Lender]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

On 2008-10-08 12:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>One way to make the distinction clearer in the FAQ would be to use
>JavaScript® and JScript® for trademarked names.

That would be wrong, because a trademark is not necessarily a
Registered Trademark (registered with the USPTO). (You of all people
should know this, no?)

Yes I do, and it would be correct, because:
* JavaScript is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, and
* JScript is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.

http://www.uspto.gov/main/search.html

(tm)/[tm] or its Unicode version would technically be OK, however I
doubt that the FAQ would become better legible or understandable
through this.

I wouldn't like it much either, and I'm not proposing to use any of the
trademark signs in the FAQ. I was only mentioning a possibility.


- Conrad

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

Conrad Lender wrote:

On 2008-10-08 12:48, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>One way to make the distinction clearer in the FAQ would be to use
>>JavaScript ® and JScript® for trademarked names.

>That would be wrong, because a trademark is not necessarily a
>Registered Trademark (registered with the USPTO). (You of all people
>should know this, no?)

>
Yes I do, and it would be correct, because:
* JavaScript is a registered trademark of Sun Microsystems, and
* JScript is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.
>
http://www.uspto.gov/main/search.html

I did not check with USPTO before, just replied from memory. I wonder,
though, why the (TM) variant is more common than the (R) variant -- did
all those people get it wrong?


PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashP ronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M SIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userA gent.indexOf('M ac') != -1
) // Plone, register_functi on.js:16

[Richard Cornford]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

On Oct 8, 2:17 am, Conrad Lender wrote:

On 2008-10-08 01:55, Richard Cornford wrote:
>

>Conrad Lender wrote:

>>With all due respect, but if "JavaScript " is a trademark, then
>>"Javascript " is protected as well

>

>Your point being? (Given that I am not proposing not using
>"JavaScript " because it is a trademark name but rather using
>it only to identify the implementation to which the
>trademark name belongs.)

>
I'm sorry, I may have misread you. I thought you were proposing
"javascript " (which of course is also trademark protected) as
an umbrella for this group of languages.

Using (or rather continuing to use) "javascript " as umbrella term for
all ECMAScript implementations is precisely what I am proposing.

Legalities aside, I _personally_ have no objections against
using (any spelling of) JavaScript to refer to the group of
implementations that the FAQ readers are dealing with every day.

So no objections to using an all lowercase version.

Yes, it's ambiguous, because "JavaScript " also refers to a
specific implementation, as we know,

So we reduce the ambiguity by not using that formulation except when
talking of the specific implementation.

but that's the way that it's (incorrectly, or rather imprecisely)
come to be used, and it's too late for the pebbles to vote about
that.

The generality of how "JavaScript " has come to be used is irrelevant
to a discussion of changing the way it is used in the group's FAQ. The
distinction was manifest in previous versions and employed following
debate on the subject and a reasonable consensus being reached. The
subject here is should the usage be changed in the FAQ, and if so how.
It should not be changed (making how it would be changed academic).

The _FAQ_ can be more specific in some areas, like for instance
when it says:
>
| EcmaScript numbers are represented in binary as IEEE-754
| (IEC 559) Doubles, with a resolution of 53 bits [...]

That may be precisely the sort of context where "javascript " would be
the appropriate label, as the use of IEEE double precision floating
point numbers is common to all implementations , and remembering that
novices likely have no idea what ECMAScript is and probably won't
fully comprehend it on first encountering its use in the FAQ.

Perfect use of EcmaScript here (except that I'd rather have it
spelled ECMAScript).

I disagree. I think the use of ECMAScript here is getting in the way
of providing a "quick answer", which is what that entry is supposed to
be doing.

On the other hand, there are topics like:
>
| How can I see in JavaScript if a web browser accepts cookies?
>
How should that be spelled then?

"javascript "

>"ECMAScript " doesn't apply, "JavaScript " would (as you say) be
too specific, so we use "javascript "?

Yes, it is not that difficult to do.

<snip>

In any case, distinctions based on capitalization are (IMO)
just asking for trouble.

I don't see that. The worst outcome is that a distinction between
"javascript " and "JavaScript " is not observed by the reader, but if
only "JavaScript " were used (or the two used inconsistently) then the
distinction would not be exist and so could not be observed. That
means the worst outcome is not very bad at all, and certainly not
likely to increase 'trouble'.

[..]
>

>>At the very least the FAQ could (should) mention which names
>>are trademarked.

>

>I don't see that as adding anything useful, given that it already
>states what JavaScript, JScript and ECMAScript are.

>
Actually, I'm not sure that it does. I admit, I've never read it
top-to-bottom, but by plain searching I couldn't find a definition
of JavaScript in the clj FAQ. Funny that :)

Yes, in the case of JavaScript there is only the implication, and
maybe the FAQ should be more explicit on that particular
implementation.

...still think it would be worth at least a footnote to say who
owns the respective trademarks on those terms. But you're
right, it's not that important.

Maybe, but it would have to be very short.

Richard.

[Dr J R Stockton]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

In comp.lang.javas cript message <gcgmg5$t5v$1@a ioe.org>, Wed, 8 Oct 2008
00:05:58, Conrad Lender <crlender@yahoo .composted:

>On 2008-10-07 23:05, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

>On Oct 7, 8:11 pm, Conrad Lender <crlen...@yahoo .comwrote:

>>>On 2008-10-07 18:35, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>>>>One should be guided firstly by what ISO/IEC 16262 uses internally,
>>>>secondari ly by what ECMA 262 uses internally,
>>>Is there any difference between the two? I've never bothered with the
>>>ISO specs, because I consider ECMA-262 to be normative, and because ISO
>>>usually charges quite a bit for a copy of their specs.

>>
>For the casual reader, IMHO, ISO uses a nicer font. For the
>programmer, ISO has has some at least of the ECMA bugs fixed. For the
>present purpose, the "auxiliary" text differs between the two, and is
>as much a source of guidance as the core text.

>
>Thank you. Apart from the nicer font, would those "bug fixes" be the
>ECMA-262 errata, or did they change the language in any way, to remove
>what they considered bugs?

There is at least one change that I don't think is in the errata. It
does not affect the meaning. I've not done the full comparison of 262 +
errata with 16262, but TL should have memorised all three.

And what do the "auxiliary" texts contain?

Things about the document; but correctly spelt, which is what matters
here.

I
>still balk at paying CHF 230,- for something that should be free and
>open and accessible to all; but I would very much like to know if
>they've added anything substantial to the specification.

Then read it. In their great benevolence, ISO apparently give you three
options : the standard on paper, many CHF; the standard as PDF, many CHF
(?); the standard as PDF (zip), FOC. If you had read through my site,
you would have discovered that. If you had read through the current
FAQ, you would have discovered that. You must realise that I look into
16262 frequently; I'm at least as mean as you, and would not have paid
for it!

>I would *NOT* have recommended Wikicodia.

>
>Never even heard of that one. www.wikicodia.org shows something about a
>"FaviGame" whatever that is, and www.wikicodia.com is just a squatter?

It was advertised here last year. It was a Wiki-style programming site,
dominated by a group of oriental-sounding gentlemen who no doubt thought
that they were wily. In fact, they were singularly incompetent - they
knew almost as much about good programming as Thomas Lahn doesn't. But
they had better manners, though worse English. After about 12 months
(~20080519) the original site vanished; soon after (<=20080720),
something like you describe appeared there.

>Off-topic warning : I've noticed a Web-Mailer which, at least in its
>display, apparently treats characters < and maybe & as HTML does.
>They should of course be sent to the browser as &lt; &gt; &amp;, as is
>necessary in my Code Boxes.

>
>Sorry, I lost you there. Was that a remark on the formatting of my post?
>I've been using aioe.org since my usual provider has been unreachable
>all day. Still it should be all plain-text (I hope).

Note : "off-topic warning". Some mails to me go that way, before being
collected by POP3 to Turnpike, where that are displayed properly. The
effect on a discussion of the FAQ can be striking. But thanks for
writing "aioe"; I'd been trying to remember that string.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/- FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.

Usenet News services are currently unreliable; I may not see all articles here.

[Conrad Lender]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

On 2008-10-08 15:28, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

>I
>>still balk at paying CHF 230,- for something that should be free and
>>open and accessible to all; but I would very much like to know if
>>they've added anything substantial to the specification.

>
Then read it. In their great benevolence, ISO apparently give you three
options : the standard on paper, many CHF; the standard as PDF, many CHF
(?); the standard as PDF (zip), FOC. If you had read through my site,
you would have discovered that. If you had read through the current
FAQ, you would have discovered that. You must realise that I look into
16262 frequently; I'm at least as mean as you, and would not have paid
for it!

Thanks, I must have missed that download link. I had simply assumed
(from previous attempts to download standards documents there) that they
would rather burn the specs than let anybody get them for free.

| You are downloading a single-user licence to store this file on your
| personal computer. [...] You may print out and retain one-only printed
| copy of the PDF file.

And then I have to destroy the PDF and download a fresh one, or what?
Weird disclaimers and font preferences aside, this is actually a useful
document; it already has the errata from ECMA-262 integrated, which will
come in handy when I'm writing my own engine (jk). Apart from that, I
didn't see any obvious changes or additions (I did not compare all 180+
pages in detail).


- Conrad

[John G Harris]

Re: EcmaScript, ECMAScript, or JavaScript ?

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 at 14:05:19, in comp.lang.javas cript, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

<snip>

>Wikipedia technical articles are usually thoughtfully written and
>edited, with discussion. In such matters, they are more likely to be
>right than is any one person here, and approximately as likely to be
>right as is a consensus here. Therefore they are worth considering,
>as a respectable opinion.

<snip>

If you look at Wikipedia's definition of a javascript 'if' statement
you'll see it's blatantly wrong. Why would anyone trust the rest of the
javascript articles ?

John
--
John Harris