Will there be a suggested file suffix for es4?

Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:08:51 -0700

There are already variants of ECMA-262 languages that have suffixes  
(.js, .as most conspicuous).  Let a thousand suffixes bloom?  I hope  
not, and we finally have standard MIME types (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/ 
rfc4329.txt).  Some insist on using .es, but .es is not likely to  
become popular. ECMAScript was always an unwanted trade name that  
sounds like a skin disease.

I predict .js will continue to be used, and content negotiation will  
not depend on suffix or even MIME type.  That is, tools will have to  
know what versions they're dealing with, and servers will have to  
know what version user agents support.  This is the situation with  
servers on the web already; it has been that way for 12 years.  The  
Accept: header is failure, it does not scale in bandwidth or over  
time and (web) space; it does not let the server say what it prefers.

Is this an excessive hardship for tools, if not for servers?   
Heretofore-reserved identifiers such as 'class', and such unreserved  
novelties as 'use' pragmas, should be easy to discern.

When servers and clients chat, the MIME type's version= parameter  
*should* be respected, at least for type="application/ 
ecmascript;version=4" and type="application/javascript;version=2".   
Not all browsers respect it today.  File bugs with those browsers you  
care about that have open bug systems ;-).

/be

On Oct 3, 2006, at 10:27 AM, P T Withington wrote:

> js1/es3 seems to have standardized on .js.  Will there be a  
> different suffix for js2/es4?  Or will tools be expected to figure  
> it out from the content of the file?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Es4-discuss mailing list
> Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss

May	JUN	Jul
	21
2019	2020	2021