E-S4L N-S4L
> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:14 PM, "Brendan Eich" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 have to comment on this... I have read the fact that you felt like this about the name ES, but reading your words exactly expression this, is another thing. >> 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.) Or easily be em--ECMAScript-Module-- and the same for jm Someone need to set a convention... I on the other hand will be using esm extension, cause I favorite the spec name more. The name JavaScript is the language the program is in the browser to me. > > /be > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
