Editorial: Refer to ECMA-262 as JavaScript rather than ECMAScript

[jeremyroman]

This is consistent with how the HTML Living Standard, also a a WHATWG work product, refers to it and is how most developers would be familiar with it.

Included in this change:

• a note about this convention
• renaming various algorithms and sections (and adding aliases for pre-existing IDs)
• renaming variables and other things which refer to ECMAScript in an abbreviation

Fixes #863.

---

Preview | Diff

[jeremyroman]

@annevk @domenic PTAL? I'm hopeful that preserving most of the IDs as old IDs (or replicating the effect of oldids by using the same trick of adding empty spans, for cases where that's not supported by Bikeshed) will minimize the disruption to other specs.

[annevk]

Thanks for tackling this @jeremyroman!

[annevk]

Suggested change

	the constant value can be accessed in JavaScript either as
	the constant value can be accessed in JavaScript either as

[jeremyroman]

Done.

[annevk]

I think keeping the old IDs and not adding new IDs would be fine as well. I personally prefer that as it shows the document has some history.

[jeremyroman]

There's some history of using oldids (e.g., adding es-undefined and adding es-void as an old ID, when WebIDL renamed the concept of void). If the consensus is that we should continue to use es- for IDs then I can unwind that, though.

[annevk]

We should add "Fixes #863." to the end of the final commit message. (Seems PR Preview won the race a couple times there.)