On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, John Barton wrote:
I think we could also imagine that such an import declaration could be
used without the HTML Import declaration. The fetch() call will ask for
baseURL/foo/b.js and the server will say
I think that only makes sense if 'this.import()' worked for
script-tags-marked-as-modules in general. If the general case supported it,
then it should just work for HTML imports.
OTOH, I think System.import() is clearer.
jjb
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Matthew Robb matthewwr...@gmail.com
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, John Barton wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Now, in the main page, you reference the HTML import:
link rel=import href=foo.html
Now how would you refer to the modules? We can't have #b refer
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
To avoid overly spamming the list I've coallesced my responses to various
threads over the weekend into this one e-mail.
I really think this makes the discussion more difficult to follow and
certainly more difficult to
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, John Barton wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
To avoid overly spamming the list I've coallesced my responses to
various threads over the weekend into this one e-mail.
I really think this makes the discussion more difficult to
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
Now, in the main page, you reference the HTML import:
link rel=import href=foo.html
Now how would you refer to the modules? We can't have #b refer to
it, since the scope of IDs is per-document,
Would there be any problems treating the html import as a virtual module
itself. Giving all scripts inside the sub document the module context
object as its this binding? Then to do any additional loading you'd need to
do this.import().
On Aug 18, 2014 6:56 PM, John Barton johnjbar...@google.com
7 matches
Mail list logo
