Any news about the `<module>` element?

caridy caridy at gmail.com
Thu Dec 18 18:13:33 PST 2014


Axel, we have discussed the minimum set of requirements to get modules implemented by vendors asap (and there is certainly interest). Proposal for phase one:

<script type="module">...</script>
<script type="module" src="foo.js"></script>

What does this means?

* no loader (if you need on-demand loading, you can insert script tags with type=module, similar to what we do today for scripts)
* no hooks or settings (if you need more advanced features, you will have to deal with those manually)

Open questions:

* how to fallback? ideally, we will need a way to detect modules support, equivalent to <noscript> in semantic.
* we need to reserve some resolution rules to support mappings and hooks in the future (e.g.: `import foo from "foo/mod.js"` will not work because `foo` will require loader configs or hooks to be defined, while `import foo from “./foo/mod.js”` and `import foo from “//cdn.com/foo/mod.js”` will work just fine).

Again, these are the basic ideas to get modules implemented soon. There are many other quirks, we should probably post something before the next meeting.

/caridy

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 8:41 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:
> 
> Is there any news about `<module>` element, any proposal I could follow to stay up to date?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Axel
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> axel at rauschma.de <mailto:axel at rauschma.de>
> rauschma.de
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20141218/8cd8a95b/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list