To be clear, I'd be fine with this, I just think it wouldn't catch on. It's just an awkward name, that exists for this same trademark reason, and was thus never expected to take on "marketing" duties (sort of like calling WebWorkers W3CWorkers instead).
This is of course speculation, but I think people would interpret us trying to switch to "ECMAScript" as a sort of sulky defeat "wait so we're just going to let Oracle have JavaScript and just use the soulless spec name? No way, we should fight for JavaScript!" It feels like we're "settling" for the SKU number since we lost the name (again, due to the uniquely bizarre, but understandable in context, spec name).
In other words, besides the "consistency" that WebScript offers (WebWorkers, WebGPU, etc.), the other thing it brings to the table is just being something new and different. "Hey! Let's move on from this whole debacle, here is a symbolic thing that represents a new chapter, with zero associated baggage." I am largely basing this off of the experience of "html5," which arguably addressed a similar non-technical debacle in the form of the W3C/WHATWG drama. It is surprising how effective a new name can be at putting a positive spin on things.
Again, I personally have no issue with ECMAScript, I just think the boat has sailed on getting people to switch to that, and if we switch to anything, the goal should be to make sure to get everyone onboard.
Fully agreed on all points. I'm fine with either, but now is the time to change all considered. Personally I prefer ECMAscript as I already have a familiarity there, but you make an excellent point about webscript being a better general and beginner/outsider friendly term.
