> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mark Miller <[email protected]> > To: John Barton <[email protected]> > Cc: es-discuss <[email protected]>, Erik Arvidsson < [email protected]> > Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 21:26:27 -0700 > Subject: Re: what makes a file a module? > I agree that we should come to consensus on a file extension. The argument that "it is out of our jurisdiction" only makes sense to me if it is in some other group's jurisdiction. AFAICT, it is not. And consensus is needed, so let's proceed. > > Suggestions? > Is there any reason we should still limit ourselves to the traditional three characters? > Are there any registries reliable enough to get a sense of possible conflicts, or how bad they may be? > Once we choose an extension, what if anything should be done about correspondence with mime type? > > IIRC, the extension ".jsm" was already proposed, but may have had fatal conflicts. To get the ball rolling, ".jsmod" ? >
Or maybe, less obtrusively, ".m.js" or ".mod.js"? It would still be possible to tell them apart near instantly, while tooling can still often rely on the ".js" extension. Syntax highlighters won't really have to change. The multiple extension format is already somewhat commonplace, especially with tarballs. PortableApps.com uses ".paf.exe" to denote their application installers while still allowing them to be run standalone by Windows. > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:43 PM, John Barton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> It is implementation dependent how it is determined whether an individual file will be parsed as a Script or as a Module. >>> >>> Axel alluded to a possible HTML extension that could be used to distinguish modules from scripts. But, exactly how modules will be integrated into HTML is still under development. >>> >>> You can imagine various ways that modules might be identified in a command line environment. for example >>> >>> js script1.js -m mod1.js -m mod2.js script2.js >>> >>> so of us have argued that a module file extension might be useful in such environments: >>> >>> js script1.js mod1.js mod2.js script2.js >> >> >> FWIW, traceur has to use --script vs --module on the command line and .module.js among files otherwise parsed as script. >> >> You may recall that Yehuda Katz suggested on this group that a prefix might be used, script:file.js. To avoid long arguments about What Is a URL, I suggest a postfix string, file.js,script. Of course a file extension would be better. Many build tools use filenames and this issue puts practical work with ES6 at a disadvantage. >> >> jjb >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > > > -- > Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain > > Cheers, > --MarkM > > _______________________________________________ > 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
