brendan at mozilla.org
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 mozilla.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
More information about the es-discuss