On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Jason Orendorff <[email protected]> wrote: > 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).
But you are treating them as URLs by default (with a small dose of magic). >> 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 think that because of this you cannot really use the default loader semantics in most scenarios. Lots of sites reuse a script on several pages (i.e. documents) with disparate URLs, similar to how they reuse CSS. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
