Matthew Robb wrote:
Personally I have felt this way for a long time as well. I think `.esm` is somewhat confusing since most js developers don't really think about it as EcmaScript.
(sounds like a skin disease...)
I would think you could just as easily do `.jsm` but this also suggests that files of this alternate should be served with a different mime type such as `text/javascript-module` or something along those lines.
RFC4329 rightly favors application/ -- but this is all beyond the scope of ECMA-262. Do Not Want TC39 deciding suffixes. Let developers develop conventions. (Just so long as they do not sound like skin diseases.)
/be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
