import ModuleSpecifier

Erik Arvidsson erik.arvidsson at gmail.com
Mon Jun 1 14:49:28 UTC 2015


Don't worry. It is going to be spec'ed as part of the module loader spec.
http://whatwg.github.io/loader/

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:47 AM John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com> wrote:

> This same claim could be made about every item in ECMAScript.
> Implementation variation in ModuleSpecifiers is no different from variation
> in the allowed keywords, character set, or really anything a developer
> types.  Failing to specify this aspect of the language makes no sense to
> this developer at least.
>
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
>
>> Browsers in any semi-competitive market will agree on a standard. I don't
>> see why that needs to be called into doubt, even as part of a "hypothetical
>> future" :-|. (Is there another kind? :-P)
>>
>> /be
>>
>> Domenic Denicola wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, in theory. However, browsers are more likely to wait until there’s
>>> a standard for browser module loaders before shipping modules, in order to
>>> avoid such divergent behavior.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150601/bfbbf730/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list