Module naming and declarations
rossberg at google.com
Thu May 2 07:49:01 PDT 2013
On 1 May 2013 22:02, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks James, for your input. As an aside, I want to make perfectly clear
> that I don't think the AMD approach to module IDs is necessary a bad thing,
> or that full "http" URLs are necessarily any better for dependency naming.
> I am arguing that AMD resolution semantics should not be baked in.
> I am arguing that URLs should be the only *default* means of specifying
> external modules in the browser, with standard URL semantics.
> I am arguing that we should not bake *any* package dependency resolution
> strategy into the core module system. Especially not something as "fuzzy"
> as module IDs.
More information about the es-discuss