Clarification on Internet media type and standard file names

[tc39]

Clarification on Internet media type and standard file names

[domenic]

I would suggest not trying to push es on the community via a standards process, as it has very little use, and per the inventor of the language "ECMAScript was always an unwanted trade name that sounds like a skin disease.".

[objectkit]

I hear you @domenic. I do know it is not going to be easy considering that sociocultural normativity and historic business identities seem to override concerns for the brevity of the file extension I have a fixation with possibly proposing. It is unfortunate that you quote a reference to skin disease considering the plight of Michael Jackson for example. Such concerns should not apply here. Logical brevity should, at least in my opinion. I appreciate your feedback however!

[bmeck]

Note that the document @devsnek linked above does add the goal= parameter to disambiguate different parsing goals of ECMA262. The document above also reflects that application/javascript to be supported but OBSOLETE to realign with Web Browser Standards.

[objectkit]

@bmeck
Thank you for pointing out Web Browser Standards

@devsnek Thank you for clarification on application/ecmascript

From reading through quickly, I believe I understand the rationale behind the inclusion of the m prefix as an identifier to demarcate to vendors that hosts will be interpreting file contents with the expectation of ES6+ modules, and that makes a lot sense. One is needed IMO. If one wanted to suggest a joint standard such that the es file type will also suffice as an equivalent host-centric identifier, how would one go about that? I understand it would not be straightforward, but I would find it desirable. How would such a process work, theoretically?

[snuggs]

@objectkit that's been my entire point for years now as people sit back and laugh. As an African American with skin issues who would rather see this community (that doesn't look like me) let this dead man R.I.P. I'm actually shocked seeing this rhetoric saying "Michael Jackson Script" is ok but "ECMAscript" sounds like a skin disease. quoted or not....NOT COOL @domenic. You're usually the watchdog for this type of rhetoric. You are better than that. Quite disappointed. And offended. 😦

Seems like talking bad about Internet Explorer is considered worse than talking about people with skin issues. You may want to revisit the TC39 Code of Conduct

[devsnek]

RFC 4329 specifies application/javascript and application/ecmascript (and a bunch of other ones, you should probably read it to be certain of what you're doing)

mjs is on its way: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-01 (note this is an updated draft version of 4329)

[bmeck]

@objectkit you would submit a new internet draft to the IETF which controls the MIME like https://github.com/bmeck/I-D/tree/master/javascript-mjs and submit through IETF tools at https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/

[objectkit]

@bmeck Thank you. Very much appreciated.

I may take an independent punt at submitting a new draft based on the one that you have already produced.

If I were to proceed with doing so, it would bear respect to and encompass accreditation of your draft with your permission.

It would specify that mjs and es are intersubstitutable, yet prioritise es as it is not a TLA. The express motive of doing so is to silence my own overbearing impersonal desire for simplicity as a bedrock for the languages dynamism.

I am open to any countenances and further advice of course, so please continue to post comments as necessary.

Namaste

[ljharb]

This seems answered; closing.

[mikesamuel]

@snuggs, @objectkit,
I agree in part. "Michael Jackson Script" communicates nothing of value and can offend.
Jokes are not a good way to frame the relative merits of .mjs and .es.

But I don't think it's fair to blame @domenic for what seems like a coincidence.
Domenic didn't raise "Michael Jackson Script" in this thread, and per "skin disease" was actually quoting Brendan who, IIUC, compared "ECMA" with "Eczema" long before anyone proposed the .mjs extension.

That said, I don't see Brendan's point about the marketing value of "ECMA-" as a point against .es. JavaScript/EcmaScript, whatever you want to call it, has already won in the marketplace for client-side languages, so we wouldn't miss any marketing opportunity by going with .es.

[gesa]

Hey @snuggs, I'm on the Code of Conduct committee and just wanted to let you know we saw your message. You're right that the comment Brendan made back in 2006 was hurtful and has no place in the discourse now. Thank you for pointing it out. We'll be encouraging the entire technical committee to avoid this wording in the future.