On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Ian Hickson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. >
... > 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/ If they share a Window object then they should share a Loader, but they may have different baseURLs. So for you example above we write eg. import {b} from "./b"; because the scripts in the HTML import will have names relative to the same default baseURL as the main document. So I guess URL space is like http://example.com/index.html http://example.com/foo.html http://example.com/b.js I suppose it would be more common for the component to be in a subdirectory, eg http://example.com/index.html http://example.com/foo/theFoo.html http://example.com/foo/b.js so the import would be import {b} from "./foo/b"; I think we could also imagine that such an import declaration could be used without the HTML Import declaration. The fetch() call will ask for "<baseURL>/foo/b.js" and the server will say "hey that's in an HMTL Import" and serve text/html. The fetch() hook will have to detect this and process the HTML Import, then continue with the loading process. This much I'm just making up. jjb
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
