On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Jason Orendorff [[email protected]] > >> Here's what you would do under the proposal: >> >> ```js >> // import a module in the same package/project >> import "./controllers" as controllers; >> >> // import some other package >> import "backbone" as backbone; >> ``` >> >> The surface syntax deliberately follows Node. The first import is relative >> and the second is absolute, within the tree of module names (not URLs; >> neither of those module names is a URL). > > That is not my understanding of Sam's message at > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-May/030553.html. Following > those steps for `"backbone"` would, according to that message, > > 1. Split the module name on "/", url-encode, and re-join (yielding > `"backbone"`). > 2. Append ".js" to the module name (yielding `"backbone.js"`). > 3. Use the URL parser with the base URL to produce an absolute URL (yielding > `"http://example.com/path/to/base/backbone.js"`). > 4. Pass the absolute URL to the fetch hook.
How is this in disagreement with what Jason said? His point is that if you're in the module "a/b/c", "./controllers" refers to "a/b/controllers", and "backbone" refers to "backbone". Once you have a module name, there's a default resolution semantics to produce a URL for the fetch hook, which you describe accurately. Sam _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
