Don't worry. It is going to be spec'ed as part of the module loader spec. http://whatwg.github.io/loader/
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:47 AM John Barton <johnjbar...@google.com> wrote: > This same claim could be made about every item in ECMAScript. > Implementation variation in ModuleSpecifiers is no different from variation > in the allowed keywords, character set, or really anything a developer > types. Failing to specify this aspect of the language makes no sense to > this developer at least. > > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote: > >> Browsers in any semi-competitive market will agree on a standard. I don't >> see why that needs to be called into doubt, even as part of a "hypothetical >> future" :-|. (Is there another kind? :-P) >> >> /be >> >> Domenic Denicola wrote: >> >>> Yes, in theory. However, browsers are more likely to wait until there’s >>> a standard for browser module loaders before shipping modules, in order to >>> avoid such divergent behavior. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
