import script --> .esm

L2L 2L emanuelallen at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 10 10:59:21 PDT 2014



E-S4L
N-S4L

> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:14 PM, "Brendan Eich" <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
> 
> Matthew Robb wrote:
>> Personally I have felt this way for a long time as well. I think `.esm` is somewhat confusing since most js developers don't really think about it as EcmaScript.
> 
> (sounds like a skin disease...)
> 
I have to comment on this... I have read the fact that you felt like this about the name ES, but reading your words exactly expression this, is another thing.
>> I would think you could just as easily do `.jsm` but this also suggests that files of this alternate should be served with a different mime type such as `text/javascript-module` or something along those lines.
> 
> RFC4329 rightly favors application/ -- but this is all beyond the scope of ECMA-262. Do Not Want TC39 deciding suffixes. Let developers develop conventions. (Just so long as they do not sound like skin diseases.)
Or easily be em--ECMAScript-Module-- and the same for jm

Someone need to set a convention...

I on the other hand will be using esm extension, cause I favorite the spec name more. 

The name JavaScript is the language the program is in the browser to me.  
> 
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


More information about the es-discuss mailing list