On Oct 7, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: >> I personally believe that the unsound, untestable/non-executable ES3 >> spec is a rathole we should avoid. The errata (which are not complete >> by a long shot) that we have hosted at http://www.mozilla.org/js/ >> language/E262-3-errata.html would have to be incorporated, again with >> high risk of bugs and no way to test. I think we are much better off >> working on the ES4 refimpl and the spec derived in part from it. >> > That is disappointing to hear.
Why? Which particular word in "unsound", "untestable" and "rathole" was wrong, so that you'd be disappointed we didn't charge down that tunnel? > I sent an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED], as it is listed on the front of > the manual, but did not get a reply. That mail made it to my attention. The problem besides the lack of soundness and testability is that editing minor corrections can be done, but creates a difference between the Ecma spec and the ISO version of it. Editing non-trivial fixes is not well-supported by Ecma process or JTC-1 Fast-track to ISO. The fix is to do a new Edition, but that's not going to happen just to fix a few (or even a lot of) errata. It has been over eight years since Edition 3, and the JS authors deserve better than a typo fix or three. Our work on Edition 4 is all but specified. Meaning, we're about ten months from really all but done with the spec -- spec- writing is hard work, but at least this time there will be a testable reference implementation provided along with the spec, and bug-fixed over time. Modern standards are not holy writ, and as you note not bug-free. They should move toward continual refinement and release, as software has (Windows Update, Apple Software Update, etc.). The Ecma process is not nearly that continual. The Scheme community wants to move toward a more frequent update of their spec (R6RS, R6.1RS, etc.). I'm working with Ecma folks to explore a way forward along those lines, but it won't happen quickly. The best plan now is to get back to an every-two-years release footing, based on ES4. > If the documentation were amended, understanding would most likely > improve. Maybe, but there're lots of JS books on shelves and people cope without delving into the corners of the spec that contain errata. We get very few complaints -- yours is one of a few cases where someone bothered to mail Ecma. > BTW, I'm having trouble viewing ecmascript.org now. Works for me at the moment. /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
