>
> Open questions:
>
> * how to fallback? ideally, we will need a way to detect modules support,
> equivalent to in semantic.
>
Is there much interest in a fallback option? I would think that the
typical web shop would have little to no interest in dual-delivering both
proper modules and transp
> From: Allen Wirfs-Brock
> To: Anne van Kesteren
> Cc: es-discuss list
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 14:45:08 -0800
> Subject: Re: Any news about the `` element?
>
> On Dec 21, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 5:42 PM,
Awesome.
On Dec 21, 2014 8:14 PM, "Caridy Patino" wrote:
> Isiah, yes, we are still trying to get some traction on that repo. we will
> be adding some docs related to this discussion soon.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 21, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Isiah Meadows wrote:
>
> I found [this][1] a while
Allen, that's my hope. It will be ideal, and it solves web workers and service
workers use cases, but we need implementers to chime in.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 21, 2014, at 5:52 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Caridy Patino wrote:
>>
>> The problem is th
Isiah, yes, we are still trying to get some traction on that repo. we will be
adding some docs related to this discussion soon.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 21, 2014, at 6:44 PM, Isiah Meadows wrote:
>
> I found [this][1] a while back, and can't seem to find any discussion or
> specification
I found [this][1] a while back, and can't seem to find any discussion or
specification more up to date than this document until this thread.
I know it could be a little off topic, but just throwing it out there.
[1]: https://whatwg.github.io/loader/
___
On Dec 20, 2014, at 6:21 PM, Caridy Patino wrote:
> The problem is that those inline modules might import other modules, e.g.:
But because of the improved semantics (implicit strict, file local declaration
scope, etc.) we really would like to see a world where people use type=modules
for ever
On Dec 21, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 5:42 PM, James Burke wrote:
>> (I am
>> sure you are aware of the coming Service Worker bliss, so not just a
>> curious side issue):
>
> I and some others have been advocating for service workers to run in
> strict
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 5:42 PM, James Burke wrote:
> (I am
> sure you are aware of the coming Service Worker bliss, so not just a
> curious side issue):
I and some others have been advocating for service workers to run in
strict mode by default, as well as having this be undefined so they
could
Couldn't the tag be restricted to be the last tag inside ?
Then we don't need them to be async to avoid blocking rendering and the
declarative order would more closely match the semantics. Multiple tags
could be loaded in parallel and sequenced on execution.
jjb
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:59 PM,
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:55 PM, caridy wrote:
> Yeah, the idea is to get engines (V8 maybe) to implement what is spec’d in
> ES6 today, and get a very basic implementation of
IMO order should always be preserved.
From: Caridy Patino<mailto:car...@gmail.com>
Sent: 2014-12-20 21:21
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock<mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com>
Cc: es-discuss list<mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Subject: Re: Any news about th
The problem is that those inline modules might import other modules, e.g.:
import foo from "./foo.js";
window.sequence = 10;
console.log(window.sequence);
console.log(" should be 11: " + ++window.sequence);
IMO they should be async (implicit and not configurable) and if the order
On Dec 20, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Caridy Patino wrote:
> John, think of .
>
> For , async is implicit.
What if you have a series of modules that need to be evaluated in sequential
order? (Remember, that a module with no imports is the module worlds
equivalent to a simple sequential script.). e
John, think of .
For
t the semantics.
>
> From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of John
> Barton
> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 15:02
> To: Matthew Robb
> Cc: es-discuss list
> Subject: Re: Any news about the `` element?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 20,
To: Matthew Robb
Cc: es-discuss list
Subject: Re: Any news about the `` element?
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Matthew Robb
mailto:matthewwr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Caridy Patino
mailto:car...@gmail.com>> wrote:
what make you think this prop
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Matthew Robb
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Caridy Patino wrote:
>
>> what make you think this proposal implies blocking?
>
>
> I think he was reading your examples using "require()" and thinking you
> were suggesting that the semantics would match
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Caridy Patino wrote:
> what make you think this proposal implies blocking?
I think he was reading your examples using "require()" and thinking you
were suggesting that the semantics would match.
- Matthew Robb
___
It will not block, modules are async by nature. what make you think this
proposal implies blocking?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 20, 2014, at 1:04 PM, John Barton wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:55 PM, caridy wrote:
>> inline...
>>
>> > On Dec 19, 2014, at 3:21 PM, James Burke w
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:55 PM, caridy wrote:
> inline...
>
> > On Dec 19, 2014, at 3:21 PM, James Burke wrote:
> >...
> > * How does dynamic loading work in a web worker? In general, how does
> > dynamic loading work when there is no DOM.
>
> think about this as nodejs without NPM and core mod
inline...
> On Dec 19, 2014, at 3:21 PM, James Burke wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:13 PM, caridy wrote:
>> What does this means?
>>
>> * no loader (if you need on-demand loading, you can insert script tags with
>> type=module, similar to what we do today for scripts)
>> * no hooks or se
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:13 PM, caridy wrote:
> What does this means?
>
> * no loader (if you need on-demand loading, you can insert script tags with
> type=module, similar to what we do today for scripts)
> * no hooks or settings (if you need more advanced features, you will have to
> deal with
Axel, we have discussed the minimum set of requirements to get modules
implemented by vendors asap (and there is certainly interest). Proposal for
phase one:
...
What does this means?
* no loader (if you need on-demand loading, you can insert script tags with
type=module, similar to what we
Is there any news about `` element, any proposal I could follow to stay
up to date?
Thanks!
Axel
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
rauschma.de
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
25 matches
Mail list logo
