> Oh, but you probably meant that the module table form, besides being sugar, > is written in a restricted language that cannot have effects other than to > create module bindings -- cannot do document.write or > document.createElementNS("script") or whatever. In that case we'd want > type="harmony-module-table" or some such, and then such a script indeed would > allow layout to proceed immediately, and not block rendering.
Yes, sorry for the mixup. I should've written something like: <script type="harmony-module-configuration-table"> { M1: "m1.js", M2: "m2.js", // ... } </script> > Thinking about it more, simple modules let authors bundle things in .js > files, and src them with scripts. That's almost enough. Anything more, we do > not want to standardize prematurely. Agreed. > Simple modules are really about lexical scope all the way up, and guaranteed > errors (early errors, even), and static code partitioning with information > hiding, and of course the lexical-only module-binding namespace management. Well put. Dave _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss