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)

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)

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)

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)

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)