On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Domenic Denicola < dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> I like <module>, simply as a better <script>. Whether it's worth the > cost is largely a matter of finding out what the cost is, from > implementers. I don't recall reading any opinions from them on the matter. > > > Hixie has brought up some interesting points on the interaction of > <module> and <script> in > <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25868,> > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25868 which may have > bearing. Ideally <module> does not use <script>'s insane parsing rules, but > there is a lot of complex stuff there that I don't think I fully grasp. > So you are saying that you want something better, something less complex that you can fully grasp. In my opinion, that option already exists: <script>System.import('moduleName').then(more-code);</script>. A <module> tag won't have those properties for the same reasons <script> is insane now. jjb
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
