On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]>wrote:
> My point was that you'd want neither the entry script's URL or the > document's base URL, but rather the URL of the script resource itself. > Since these are static links similar to <img src> in an HTML document > or url() in a CSS resource, I thought you'd want them to work the same > way. > If module names were URLs, that would definitely be the right thing. Module names aren't URLs, though. These aren't static links to static locations (for reasons discussed in this thread; e.g., it'd be counterproductive for backbone.js to have a static URL for underscore embedded in it). The associated document could work, but that means you'd always be > required to use links such as /path/to/script as otherwise the link > breaks if the script that does the importing is included from both > /doc1 and /example/doc2. > You pointed out this issue earlier, and I replied (on Monday, May 6; search for "sweet spot"). What do you think? I don't have insight as to why browsers have this model. I'm pretty > sure we cannot change it though. [...] > Oh, we're on the same page then. -j
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
