The slides included earlier in the thread are up-to-date. The link to the GitHub is for the Observable type that the syntax is expected to emit and consume.
J Dictated using voice recognition. Please forgive the typos. On Jun 12, 2014, at 10:02 AM, John Barton <johnjbar...@google.com> wrote: I urge TC39 to assess the cost/benefit of <module> carefully. It brings in a lot of issues orthogonal to JS. <script> is already a mess and HTML Imports are barely a thing. Web developers need a solution to the bundling problem for ES modules with much, much higher priority than <module>. On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 2:22 AM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 11/06/2014 18:21, Ben Newman a écrit : > > ## 7.1 <script type=module> status update (from DH) >> >> DH: Would really rather have <module>import { foo } from "bar"; >> ...</module>, which is like <script> but async, strict mode, has its own >> top-level scope, and can import declaratively (using ES6 module import >> syntax) from other (named) modules. >> > Just to be sure I understand, with <module> (or <script type="module">), > the module has to be named? So <module> never really makes sense on its own > and should always have a "name" attribute? > > > DH: <module name="qux"> creates race conditions with HTML imports (part >> of WebComponents). >> >> YK: People who saw named HTML module tags though you should mix html >> imports w named module imports >> YK: When you have packaging solution (SPDY, etc), you no longer need >> named modules >> > +1 > > > MM: <script type="module"> would inherit the special termination rules of >> </script>, whereas old browsers might not handle <module> the same way, >> since that tag name doesn't mean anything special in old browsers >> >> AR: <script type="module"> means the browser won't even try to parse it >> as JS, which is what we want [so that we can execute the script contents as >> a module, via some sort of polyfill] >> >> DH: <script type="worker"> might also need to have the <script >> type="module"> semantics, and type= attribute syntax makes it hard to mix >> and match those attributes; maybe <script worker module> would be better? >> (i.e. the type attribute values become optional value-less attribute names) >> >> DH: The difference between <script type="module"> and <module> is that as >> long as there's ... you always have the option of writing >> <script>System.import("main.js")</script> >> TODO: Get DH to clarify this point when we edit the notes. >> > cc'ing Dave Herman for this part. > > > AR: [note taker (BN) may be misinterpreting] The JS API remains important >> even when we have HTML sugar. >> > Was this part edited after the "misinterpretation" or is it the original > note? > > David > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss