5 June 2014 TC39 Meeting Notes

John Barton johnjbarton at google.com
Thu Jun 12 08:28:58 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.
So you are saying that you want something better, something less complex
that you can fully grasp. In my opinion, that option already exists:
<script>System.import('moduleName').then(more-code);</script>. A <module>
tag won't have those properties for the same reasons <script> is insane now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140612/895b2c42/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list