Le 12/06/2014 16:43, Domenic Denicola a écrit :
Also, David: s are not named; you cannot import them. Check
out
https://github.com/dherman/web-modules/blob/master/module-tag/explainer.md
Thanks, that's the context I was missing.
I'm uncomfortable with the "async" part of the proposal as curren
On 13 Jun 2014, at 18:15, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> IMO it would be a good universe where `` had the following things
> `
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Anne van Kesteren
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Mark S. Miller
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Anne, I didn't understand the answer. When an old browser that knows
>> > nothing of specifically sees "", do
Thanks, and thanks to Hixie for that playground.
I can't see us adopting parsing rules for a new tag that results in
different structure for the rest of the page on old vs new browsers.
Otherwise we just invite a whole new category of injection attacks.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Anne va
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> To be clear, you're referring to the automatic placement of as a
> descendant of BODY even if it's explicitly written inside (but
> not for
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Mark S. Miller
> wrote:
> > Hi Anne, I didn't understand the answer. When an old browser that knows
> > nothing of specifically sees "", does it
> > consider the to be closed when it sees the ? This
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Hi Anne, I didn't understand the answer. When an old browser that knows
> nothing of specifically sees "", does it
> consider the to be closed when it sees the ? This also
> raises the question: Does such an old browser consider the to b
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Mark S. Miller
> wrote:
> > Does there exist any string where an old browser using old rules would
> > decide that a is closed at one place, but a new browser
> following
> > the rules you propose would
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> Does there exist any string where an old browser using old rules would
> decide that a is closed at one place, but a new browser following
> the rules you propose would decide that the is closed at a
> different place?
Is that the constra
Does there exist any string where an old browser using old rules would
decide that a is closed at one place, but a new browser following
the rules you propose would decide that the is closed at a
different place?
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Domenic Denicola <
dome...@domenicdenicola.com> w
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Domenic Denicola
wrote:
> - Does not require escaping < > & ' " in any contexts.
`<` will need to be escaped if it would otherwise start ` - Terminates when seeing ` only when it would otherwise be a parsing error, to avoid `""`
> grossness? But that would requi
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:06 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> To some degree the line between the HTML parser and Web EcmaScript is
> movable; currently the HTML parser recognizes the `
Thanks Scott; much appreciated.
IMO it would be a good universe where `` had the following things
`
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Domenic Denicola
wrote:
> I guess part of it is clarifying which part of "
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Domenic Denicola <
dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> I like , simply as a better . 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.
>
>
> Hixi
> But a module embedded in html needs script's insane parsing rules. That's why
> doesn't work and we need
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Domenic Denicola <
dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> I like , simply as a better
;es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org> on behalf of John Barton
<johnjbar...@google.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:02
To: David Bruant
Cc: Ben Newman; es-discuss
Subject: Re: 5 June 2014 TC39 Meeting Notes
I urge TC39 to assess the cost/benefit of <module> carefully. It brings in a
lo
I urge TC39 to assess the cost/benefit of carefully. It brings in
a lot of issues orthogonal to JS. 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 .
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at
Le 11/06/2014 18:21, Ben Newman a écrit :
## 7.1 status update (from DH)
DH: Would really rather have import { foo } from "bar";
..., which is like