Module naming and declarations

Jason Orendorff jason.orendorff at
Tue May 7 11:18:05 PDT 2013

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at>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
> way.

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...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list