Talk:JavaScript: Difference between revisions
From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
(wording of article) |
(→Wording of article: I'm not at the top of my game now, please don't be offended.) |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
I'm not a big fan of the rewording of this article: I think it is now harder for non-technical users to understand what JavaScript does. We should compromise somewhere between the under-technical and the over-technical. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 04:01, 29 Mar 2005 (PST) | I'm not a big fan of the rewording of this article: I think it is now harder for non-technical users to understand what JavaScript does. We should compromise somewhere between the under-technical and the over-technical. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 04:01, 29 Mar 2005 (PST) | ||
:I think that in this case less technical would also mean less accurate. If you want to make it perceptible for commoners, add a dumbed down rephrase. Note that I plan on expanding this article. —[[User:Fatalis|Fatalis]] | |||
===Including JavaScript is not Java article=== | ===Including JavaScript is not Java article=== | ||
We should *not* merge these two articles. See [[Talk:JavaScript is not Java | here]] for reasons why. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 04:01, 29 Mar 2005 (PST) | We should *not* merge these two articles. See [[Talk:JavaScript is not Java | here]] for reasons why. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 04:01, 29 Mar 2005 (PST) |
Revision as of 13:51, 29 March 2005
Spelling of JavaScript
Mozcerize, can we please avoid using "JavaScript" name? I know that's how it was originally called, but that adds to the Java vs. Javascript confusion, looks funny, and I was already using "Javascript" wherever possible, including a category name ;p --asqueella
- Ah, OK, I'm not bothered either way. Feel free to change it. --Mozcerize
- Changing a generally established name violates the principle of least surprize. Making it clear in the main article that JavaScript is not Java should be enough. —Fatalis 14:47, 25 Mar 2005 (PST)
Wording of article
I'm not a big fan of the rewording of this article: I think it is now harder for non-technical users to understand what JavaScript does. We should compromise somewhere between the under-technical and the over-technical. --Mozcerize 04:01, 29 Mar 2005 (PST)
- I think that in this case less technical would also mean less accurate. If you want to make it perceptible for commoners, add a dumbed down rephrase. Note that I plan on expanding this article. —Fatalis
Including JavaScript is not Java article
We should *not* merge these two articles. See here for reasons why. --Mozcerize 04:01, 29 Mar 2005 (PST)