On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > >>> ... >> >> [problems snipped] >> >> There are two issues here. One is what code evaluated in nested >> loaders looks like. That's entirely up to the loader, but it >> certainly can use `import` and `export` and all of the other features >> of the module system. Those references are resolved by the loader >> being used. >> >> The second question is how we specify a particular loader to use. >> This is easy to do in JS code: `myLoader.load(url, callback)`. If we >> want convenient syntax for using this in a particular environment, >> then that would require an extension to the environment, such as an >> HTML declaration to use a particular loader for the rest of the page, >> or for a particular script tag. This is certainly doable, but >> requires coordination outside of TC39. > > Sam, > Isn't it also the case that the full characteristics of the default module > loader used by browsers still remain to be specified? This might be somewhat > out of scope for TC39 put practically speaking it's something we will need > (and want) to be involved with.
Yes, this needs to be fully specified, but Dave and I have thought a bunch about this particular issue, and I think the issues here are better understood, because they're similar to other ES/HTML integration issues. As an example, where the system loader looks for JS source specified with a relative path should be related to how the browser does this for script tags. -- sam th [email protected] _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
