JavaScript (tm) hoax
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - Why does 1+1 equal 11? or How do I convert a string to a number? (2010-05-30)
Next: ANNC: qooxlisp 0.1: Driving Miss qooxdoo (from Common Lisp)
From: David Mark on 30 May 2010 10:02 On May 30, 9:41 am, VK <schools_r...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 4:32 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> > wrote: > > > "javascript" !== "JavaScript" > > Possibly is in some countries. I am not a trademark adviser, I am > (now) a trends calculator. Whatever I know is coming from our time- > share copyright specialists. Time shares? There's never been a better time to buy (or sell!) Call for our free brochure. :) > > As much as the US law is concerned: > 'javascript' == 'JavaScript' == 'JAVASCRIPT'; That has nothing to do with accuracy in a technical discussion. Nobody is worried about TM violations.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 30 May 2010 10:38 RobG wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Joe Nine wrote: >> > VK wrote: >> >> From my side I do reserve my rights to: >> >> 1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript >> >> instead of "wrong" term JavaScript. >> > >> > You'll be busy countering Thomas pointedears daily claims that there is >> > no javascript :) >> >> "javascript" !== "JavaScript" > > In the realm of trademarks, I think you'll find that the two are > identical. Capitalisation is irrelevant. While that may be true, and might even apply to "JavaScript" (all capitalizations), you miss the point completely. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: Joe Nine on 30 May 2010 10:38 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Joe Nine wrote: > >> VK wrote: >>> From my side I do reserve my rights to: >>> 1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript >>> instead of "wrong" term JavaScript. >> You'll be busy countering Thomas pointedears daily claims that there is >> no javascript :) > > "javascript" !== "JavaScript" > > PointedEars I'm not subscribed to comp.lang.JavaScript and my script tags don't specify "JavaScript" either. It's only pedantism and semantics to think that JavaScript is how it must always be referred to. Sure if you're writing a book/article/guide/how-to then you'd ensure to case it correctly. For all other usage, javascript == perfectly acceptable. There maybe no spoon, but there's certainly a javascript :)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 30 May 2010 11:02 Joe Nine wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Joe Nine wrote: >>> VK wrote: >>>> From my side I do reserve my rights to: >>>> 1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript >>>> instead of "wrong" term JavaScript. >>> You'll be busy countering Thomas pointedears daily claims that there is >>> no javascript :) >> >> "javascript" !== "JavaScript" > > I'm not subscribed to comp.lang.JavaScript and my script tags don't > specify "JavaScript" either. It's only pedantism and semantics to think > that JavaScript is how it must always be referred to. It is a fallacy to assume that this is wanted. > Sure if you're writing a book/article/guide/how-to then you'd ensure to > case it correctly. For all other usage, javascript == perfectly > acceptable. No, for reasons I have already explained. > There maybe no spoon, but there's certainly a javascript :) There is one in the heads of its inventors. Unfortunately, that is not what the rest of the world understands it to be. PointedEars -- realism: HTML 4.01 Strict evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: John G Harris on 30 May 2010 12:04
On Sun, 30 May 2010 at 06:29:49, in comp.lang.javascript, RobG wrote: >On May 30, 10:32�pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...(a)web.de> >wrote: >> Joe Nine wrote: >> > VK wrote: >> >> From my side I do reserve my rights to: >> >> 1) to send to hell any attempts to enforce the "right" term ECMAScript >> >> instead of "wrong" term JavaScript. >> >> > You'll be busy countering Thomas pointedears daily claims that there is >> > no javascript :) >> >> "javascript" !== "JavaScript" > >In the realm of trademarks, I think you'll find that the two are >identical. Capitalisation is irrelevant. On the other hand, the owners of the dBase II trademark got very upset with anyone who got the capitals in the wrong place. John -- John Harris |