Module naming and declarations
jason.orendorff at gmail.com
Tue May 7 11:18:05 PDT 2013
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl>wrote:
> My point was that you'd want neither the entry script's URL or the
> document's base URL, but rather the URL of the script resource itself.
> Since these are static links similar to <img src> in an HTML document
> or url() in a CSS resource, I thought you'd want them to work the same
If module names were URLs, that would definitely be the right thing.
Module names aren't URLs, though. These aren't static links to static
locations (for reasons discussed in this thread; e.g., it'd be
counterproductive for backbone.js to have a static URL for underscore
embedded in it).
The associated document could work, but that means you'd always be
> required to use links such as /path/to/script as otherwise the link
> breaks if the script that does the importing is included from both
> /doc1 and /example/doc2.
You pointed out this issue earlier, and I replied (on Monday, May 6; search
for "sweet spot"). What do you think?
I don't have insight as to why browsers have this model. I'm pretty
> sure we cannot change it though. [...]
Oh, we're on the same page then.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss