Ecma262: Say what the draft represents

[tjcrowder]

I understand from Domenic Denicola that the live copy at https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/ contains only previously-specified features and Stage 4 proposals (e.g., finished ones). Let's say that clearly up front.

[ljharb]

What else would you expect it to contain?

[tjcrowder]

@ljharb Miscellaneous in-progress work which may or may not reach a final stage. "Draft" has that connotation. But Stage 4 proposals won't change in a material way prior to the next snapshot (in the normal course of things). Goal here is to say "Look, this is at an advanced stage, go ahead and cite it" which "draft" doesn't connote.

[allenwb]

Note there are also IPR differences (both copyright and RF patent) between GA approved Ecma standard and TG drafts!

[tjcrowder]

@allenwb Ah! Very good point. Then we should call those out as well. (Concisely, if possible -- perhaps just with what you've said there?)

[ljharb]

Calling out the differences is useful, but I don't think "draft" implies "includes proposals".

Generally speaking the snapshots are only useful for historical value; the spec that matters is what's on github.

[domenic]

I wonder if "Current Work" would be less confusing than "Draft"

[ljharb]

I agree that "draft" seems to be a problematic term.

[tjcrowder]

Regardless of what we call it, we'll still want to say what it represents. To me, "draft" is fine as long as we do that. Naming things is famously one of the two hard computer science problems (along with cache invalidation). The WHAT-WG went with "living standard." I don't think that'd fly (see AWB's comment here), but if people don't like "draft," perhaps "living specification."

AWB's was one of several useful comments over on the PR, which I'll update later this week folding in feedback.

[jmdyck]

We could say "About this Specification" or "About this Document".