Talk:ECMAScript for XML

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Removed the inappropriate category (Category:JavaScript dialects), as E4X is not a JavaScript dialect, but a language extension. --asqueella 195.146.72.90 15:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any chances it will still make it into the ECMAScript standard? Apparently it was dropped from "Harmony", what a pity. Is it being considered for future versions of Webkit, Opera, IE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.59.111 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chances it will still make it into the ECMAScript standard?

None at all. For example:

We've often cited EIBTI [Explicit Is Better Than Implicit] in ES4 working group meetings. In general I daresay the TC39 committee is more in favor of avoiding implicit magic, especially conversions, now than ever (E4X, ECMA-357, is full of it, and it's a mess). --Brendan Eich

The contingent who were anti-ES4 would be even less likely to accept E4X as part of ES-Harmony. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue: "JSON is an object-oriented data notation similar to XML." and should be removed. JSON is in no way similiar to XML. JSON is not a data notation, it's the syntax for creating a new javascript object, according to that description of JSON Java would also fit the bill as an OO data notation similiar to XML.... XML is also not object oriented. I could go on and on about the differences. They are completely unrelated technologies. Soverby (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be some mention of the problems with/controversy surrounding the spec. In particular Mozilla's decision not to submit an E4X test for Acid 3 is of relevance. See http://www.webstandards.org/2008/01/16/whats-the-best-test-for-acid3/#comment-59499 and http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/03/27/the-missed-opportunity-of-acid-3/#comment-135680. TheCycoONE (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why deprecated

Something should be said in the article about why e4x has been deprecated. Teo8976 (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]