import ModuleSpecifier

Brendan Eich brendan at
Mon Jun 1 17:53:13 UTC 2015

Who is failing to do what now? :-/


John Barton 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 
> <mailto:brendan at>> 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 <mailto:es-discuss at>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list