On Mon, 18 Aug 2014, John Barton wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > To avoid overly spamming the list I've coallesced my responses to > > various threads over the weekend into this one e-mail. > > I really think this makes the discussion more difficult to follow and > certainly more difficult to participate in.
Apologies, I'm not familiar with this lists' conventions. > > > > Now, in the main page, you reference the HTML import: > > > > > > > > <link rel=import href="foo.html"> > > > > > > > > Now how would you refer to the modules? We can't have #b refer to > > > > it, since the scope of IDs is per-document, and the import has a > > > > separate document. > > > > > > Separate document implies separate JS global: each needs its own > > > Loader. So the rest of the questions aren't needed. > > > > HTML imports definitely need to expose modules across documents. Are > > you saying this requires changes to ES6 to support? What changes would > > we need? > > You need to give more details about such requirements. What is the > runtime relationship between Imports and other documents? I assume the > Import is providing some state that ends up in the importer but then you > are saying these are different documents. HTML imports and regular documents share a Window object, but have separate Documents objects. You can find out more about them here: http://w3c.github.io/webcomponents/spec/imports/ They are "shortly" to be merged into the HTML spec proper; doing so is mostly just blocked on my work trying to integrate HTML with ES6's module loader so that we don't end up with multiple redundant dependency systems. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
