Who is failing to do what now? :-/
/be
John Barton 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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
