On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21 May 2013 03:41, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote: >> On May 9, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In your scheme, I honestly cannot tell. Which ones are absolute >>> logical module names, which ones are relative logical module names, >>> and which ones are relative URLs? >> >> I realized I left this sub-thread hanging. While I think you've overstated >> your argument in several places, I do recognize that combining URL's and >> module names that look like paths into one syntactic space is confusing. >> >> But really, there was no real need for loading directly from a URL in the >> first place, since it's better practice to use an abstract name and >> configure it to the URL you want anyway. (If people really want the >> additional convenience they can configure the loader to accept URL's.) >> >> So the right resolution for this question is: the browser loader recognizes >> logical modules names only. No URI's, no URL's, just logical module name >> paths. If a particular module name needs to be loaded from a remote URL, you >> can use the ondemand configuration to map the logical name ("jquery") to the >> URL ("http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.9.1.min.js";). > > Of course, that is not the "right" resolution in my mind, but the > wrong one entirely. ;) Moreover, haven't you just pushed the problem > to the ondemand API then? Or to "configured" loaders?
I recognize that it isn't the solution you want, but it is clearly a solution, since it means there's no confusion between logical names and URLs. They appear on different sides in `ondemand`. Sam _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
