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.
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)
>> 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
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss