5 June 2014 TC39 Meeting Notes

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Thu Jun 12 08:01:06 PDT 2014

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

>   I like <module>, simply as a better <script>. Whether it's worth the
> cost is largely a matter of finding out what the cost is, from
> implementers. I don't recall reading any opinions from them on the matter.
>  Hixie has brought up some interesting points on the interaction of
> <module> and <script> in
> <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25868,>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25868​ which may have
> bearing. Ideally <module> does not use <script>'s insane parsing rules, but
> there is a lot of complex stuff there that I don't think I fully grasp.
But a module embedded in html needs script's insane parsing rules. That's
why <module> doesn't work and we need <script type="module"> instead.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140612/50cd04a2/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list