TC39 includes members (e.g., Paypal, Yahoo) that are heavy users of server side JS. Samsung expressed strong interest in JS for embedded devices. Microsoft uses JS as a Windows scripting and application development language. And in any case, TC39 is committed to growing JS as a language not specific to browsers.
That said, I'm not really sure what this argument is about. Should we grow the ES6 module loading mechanism so that it can better handle the loading of other resources beside JS code that is relevant to JS? Probably. Do we know precisely where we want to draw the line of how much loading logic is to be provided by JS and specced by TC39, vs provided by a hosting environment and specced by those that spec that specific hosting environment? Probably not. But if the issue is of general interest across many hosting environments, then it should probably be handled by JS and TC39, rather than duplicating work among the hosting environment specs. On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 4:40 PM, John Barton <[email protected]> > wrote: > > My intuition is that any such plan would be vigorously opposed by the JS > > community. Or perhaps vigorously ignored: browsers are falling behind > > current technology and are no longer in a position to dictate what JS > means. > > I don't even know what this means. You are aware it's mostly browsers > that are on TC39 right and drive JS implementation? > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
