Editorial: update links to Ecma specs and update ECMA-402 descriptor

[michaelficarra]

As per https://github.com/tc39/Admin-and-Business/issues/350.

[ljharb]

should we maybe link to tc39.es instead of the yearly snapshot?

[ljharb]

This was marked resolved, but without an explanation or an update?

[michaelficarra]

We should link to the Ecma page that lists the yearly releases so that the appropriate one can be chosen.

specifically the annual edition corresponding to this edition of this specification

[ljharb]

They're both living standards - the appropriate one is only, and always, the one on tc39.es, imo.

[ecmageneva]

I think we had this discussion already...

1. There is only one TC39 Standard (ES20xx) that is currently approved by the Ecma GA year by year in their June meeting. This is what is reflected on the Ecma website, where you can access and download those standards. TC39 and the ECMA GA wish was (since 2016) to do this once per year (By the way, In theory one could go to two approvals per year, per GA, every 6 months. Theoretically, one could place letter ballot approvals in between it was needed. Theory, Ecma never did that). According to Ecma terms the actual Edition of ES20xx is the only valid standard.
2. There are between the two Editions of ES20xx so called "Draft Standards". This just reflects work in progress, but they are not the formally approved Ecma standards, because formal approval is on the GA level by Ecma Ordinary Members. Draft standards - which are not voted by the GA - can be changed through the TC work any time both from the substance and the editorial point of view. This is what TC39 does. To call such "draft standards" as "living standards" to make the impression (and even declare it so) that the draft is already the formally approved standard is not a concept what the Ecma procedures support. Let alone two "living standards" in parallel, which are different.

[michaelficarra]

@ljharb

@bakkot and I already discussed this and approved the current wording. Please merge as-is.

[ljharb]

I don’t think this is solely an editorial concern.

@ecmageneva im aware of the ecma categorization, but the living standard on tc39.es is what the wider community considers the standard, and that’s what i think should be referenced here. It’s fine if the snapshot on ecma’s website is updated to point back at ecma’s website, ofc.

[bakkot]

This section also should include IEEE-754.