Prev: how to escape and pass html as variable
Next: Simple Hack TO Get $1500 To Your PayPal Account.
From: FAQ server on 19 Jul 2010 19:00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The 5th edition of ECMAScript was approved on 2009-12-04. There is some
support in implementations released before approval date (JScript 5.8,
JavaScript 1.8, JavaScriptCore).
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm

<URL: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm>


The complete comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at
http://jibbering.com/faq/

--

The sendings of these daily posts are proficiently hosted
by http://www.pair.com.

From: S.T. on 19 Jul 2010 20:20
On 7/19/2010 4:00 PM, FAQ server wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The 5th edition of ECMAScript was approved on 2009-12-04. There is some
> support in implementations released before approval date (JScript 5.8,
> JavaScript 1.8, JavaScriptCore).
> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
>

Interestingly they've already changed a portion of v5 due to a jQuery
bug, to ensure sites using older jQuery versions function correctly.

See:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/07/16/how-ie9-platform-preview-feedback-changed-the-javascript-standard.aspx

.... and 15.2.4.2 on:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=start&cache=cache&media=resources:es5_errata_7-1-10.pdf

When discussing the future, I'd say the frameworks will have
substantially more influence.
From: David Mark on 19 Jul 2010 22:55
On Jul 19, 8:20 pm, "S.T." <a...(a)anon.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/2010 4:00 PM, FAQ server wrote:
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > FAQ Topic - What does the future hold for ECMAScript?
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > The 5th edition of ECMAScript was approved on 2009-12-04. There is some
> > support in implementations released before approval date (JScript 5.8,
> > JavaScript 1.8, JavaScriptCore).
> >http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
>
> Interestingly they've already changed a portion of v5 due to a jQuery
> bug, to ensure sites using older jQuery versions function correctly.
>
> See:http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/07/16/how-ie9-platform-previe....

jQuery application developers should know what the hell their
applications are doing. If they are passing undefined or null to the
dubious "isFunction" call then they made a mistake somewhere in
*their* code.

And, as discussed here many times, there is no reason to have an
"isFunction" method in the first place. The one reproduced in that
article is using the "Miller device", which would only be "needed" if
an application were trying to discriminate between regular expressions
and functions (or God forbid host objects). If an application is
passing a RegExp where a function is expected, it needs to break so
the authors can track down *their* problem. Adding "robustness" like
the end-arounds discussed in that article is backwards as it will
obscure the real problems, making debugging applications more
difficult for developers who need all the help they can get in that
department.

And yes, I know frameworks like Dojo and ExtJS feature "overloaded"
methods that accept either a function or a regular expression, but
those are simply bad design decisions made by developers who don't
understand the language.

That being said, the general problem of introducing such an
incompatibility in Object.prototype.toString seems like a bad idea.

>
> ... and 15.2.4.2 on:http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=start&cache=cache&med...

>
> When discussing the future, I'd say the frameworks will have
> substantially more influence.

Whatever you mean by "the frameworks" (jQuery?) you are mistaken.
Their biggest problems are related to their authors' collective
confusion about the DOM, not the language (and the browser developers
sure as hell don't accommodate them on that).

And JFTR, jQuery is not a framework. It's a poorly conceived and
perpetually failing attempt to write a CSS selector query engine that
"supports" very few browsers that are unable to handle queries
themselves. When discussing the future (or even the present), I'd say
it has no place at all.
From: Dr J R Stockton on 21 Jul 2010 14:46
In comp.lang.javascript message <4c44ebaf$0$22144$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.ne
t>, Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:20:15, S.T. <anon(a)anon.com> posted:

>
>Interestingly they've already changed a portion of v5 due to a jQuery
>bug, to ensure sites using older jQuery versions function correctly.
>
>See:
>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/07/16/how-ie9-platform-preview-
>feedback-changed-the-javascript-standard.aspx
>
>... and 15.2.4.2 on:
>http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=start&cache=cache&media
>=resources:es5_errata_7-1-10.pdf

That link should be in the FAQ.

But is it a link that always gets the latest version? The document that
it links to should also be corrected; it is clearly an Errata rather
than an Erratum. The document appears incomplete at the end; probably
it is not, but it should have a logotype colophon.

See <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-262-5.htm>.


ASIDE : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pageindx.htm>, if fed with
the FAQ or with a page such as mine are, will generate the HTML
for an index to that page, appearing like the FAQ already has.
But not in Chrome - why?

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
From: David Mark on 21 Jul 2010 19:25
On Jul 21, 2:46 pm, Dr J R Stockton <reply1...(a)merlyn.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

[...]

>
> ASIDE : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pageindx.htm>, if fed with
>         the FAQ or with a page such as mine are, will generate the HTML
>         for an index to that page, appearing like the FAQ already has.
>         But not in Chrome - why?
>

Didn't fair much better in Opera 10.5. Pressing enter in the URI
input did nothing. I finally figured out that the green thing was a
button (don't style buttons!) and clicked it...

JavaScript - http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pageindx.htm

Uncaught exception: ReferenceError: Security error: attempted to read
protected variable
Error thrown at line 34, column 2 in ReadWebPage() in
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pageindx.htm:
BODY = Ifr.contentDocument.body // Locally, dies here in Chrome

That was using http://www.cinsoft.net/ as a test subject. Something
that looked like it appeared in the IFRAME and then boom!

Back to the drawing board, doc! :)
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: how to escape and pass html as variable
Next: Simple Hack TO Get $1500 To Your PayPal Account.