On 1 May 2013 22:02, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks James, for your input. As an aside, I want to make perfectly clear > that I don't think the AMD approach to module IDs is necessary a bad thing, > or that full "http" URLs are necessarily any better for dependency naming. > > I am arguing that AMD resolution semantics should not be baked in. > > I am arguing that URLs should be the only *default* means of specifying > external modules in the browser, with standard URL semantics. > > I am arguing that we should not bake *any* package dependency resolution > strategy into the core module system. Especially not something as "fuzzy" > as module IDs.
Exactly. /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
