Update ES6 entries to point to final spec

[jacobrossi]

Correct link: http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/

But we should do the correct hash navs to the individual features. @bterlson do you have time to put up a PR for this?

[domenic]

How do you guys feel about removing the " (ES6)" suffix? It seems redundant with the categorization of them as JS. And then there's the misleading "ES7" suffix, which is just incorrect since ES7 doesn't exist and nobody knows what features will be included in it.

Not to mention 6 vs. 2015 and 7 vs. 2016.

[jacobrossi]

It's there primarily for searchability (the filter on the left works against the feature titles). Also, the site has a flaw that changing the title changes the URL to that feature (doh, eventually would like to fix this). We should though just go ahead and move ES7 to ES 2016 probably, since the searchability thing probably only applies to ES6 since it's a well-used term at this point.

[domenic]

Well, you should remove any reference to future ES versions, since we don't know what's going to be in them. E.g. no idea if SIMD is ES7 or ES8 or ES9 or never gonna happen.

[bterlson]

I felt bad adding ES7/ES2016 qualifiers but I felt it was valuable to distinguish between features in ratified specs and those that are upcoming. @domenic what do you think about adding a generic ES.next qualifier? Presumably this would be most valuable if we and Chrome agreed on a qualifier :)

[domenic]

Not "next", but maybe "ES proposal"?

[bterlson]

Proposal may confuse people who expect to see stage 2 = draft, stage 3 = candidate, etc. It would be nice actually to reflect the actual spec stage (so ES proposal, ES draft, ES candidate draft, ES final draft) but then it's a burden on me to update status as the proposals move through the process. But maybe that's ok - thoughts?

[domenic]

I mean, I think they're all proposals, of various stages. If you're up for transcribing the statuses, that's cool, but just proposal seems fine and not confusing to me.

[bterlson]

I'm fine with ES Proposal. @jacobrossi does this seem like a reasonable qualifier to you? If so I can replace ES7/ES2016 with ES Proposal across the board.

[jacobrossi]

There is a field explicitly to denote standards status (from Proposal > Editor's Draft > Working Draft or Equivalent > Established Standard). But if "ES7" is an issue, changing that to "ES Proposal" seems reasonable to me. Happy to merge a PR for that.

[domenic]

Don't get me started on that field 😭