Interoperation across ES3 implementations has been a burden for browser vendors other than Microsoft for many years. We know too well where web content requires a de-facto change from ES3, and we’ve incorporated the necessary ones into ES4.

So yes, you seem to have missed the http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:bug_fixes wiki page and its spin out pages (linked from it).

Please pay more attention to what we’re doing, if you are going to change the subject, from accusing us of ignoring the minority or shouting down dissent, back to last-minute concern for ES3 compatibility obligations.

Your second paragraph is lame premise-smuggling. ES4 as proposed is backward compatible (please prove otherwise, give us precise details), a superset of ES3 except in a relatively few cases where those very bug fixes required by divergent implementations including JScript, and by outright bugs in ES3 itself, require change.

So yeah, your characterization is false. My blog post gave links showing comments in the TG1 minority group’s March-April “es3.1″ wiki pages, demonstrating that almost all of the technical changes in 3.1 were lifted straight from ES4 (sometimes with crediting links back, sometimes without).

Everyone can follow links and read the wiki. There’s no place to hide in the open. So please, spare us these sophomoric “characterizations”.

/be

Would a characterization of your actions upon Yahoo and Microsoft saying “umm, we think getting ES3 to be interoperable and maintainable would be a good idea” as “okay, you guys go do that if you want, we’re going to keep working on inventing a new language” be false?

/be