Module naming and declarations

Anne van Kesteren annevk at annevk.nl
Mon May 6 22:04:30 PDT 2013


On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> So now you have two conventions...
>
> If the newer one is better, that's progress. Building on a broken
> ("annoyingly") convention to keep some unity-of-conventions ideal at the
> expense of usability is not the obvious winner.
>
> With the Web, you never can hope to have "one way to do it". The goal is
> "better over time".

I meant doing something different for worker scripts and document
scripts. Document scripts would all share a base URL whereas worker
scripts would each have their own. CSS @import also behaves different
from JavaScript import then.

That URLs set at runtime have a different base URLs seems kinda
logical as there's no obvious way to relate them to the script, but
for static URLs it feels wrong. (As does the appending ".js" and such.
Too much magic.)


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/


More information about the es-discuss mailing list