Correct, you wouldn't always want to add it to the document head. Yes I see there would still be semantic issues...I guess the safest/easiest way would be to have the developer state what type the resources are. How you would do that in a clean fashion I'm not sure...
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@apple.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2014, at 3:57 AM, Brian Di Palma <off...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm happy to hear that it seems natural to trigger resource loading >> within a module. >> >>> For example, I could imagine adding a new syntax for loading an arbitrary >>> sub resource dependency. >> >> Absolutely. I think the platform could provide much better syntax then >> these examples. >> >> ``` >> import '../style/index.css!'; >> import spaApplicationTemplate from '../template/spaApplication.text!'; >> ``` >> >> As devs can't really create new syntax we are forced to work with the >> existing syntax. >> It's not pretty but the CSS/LESS/text etc plugins from SystemJS >> https://github.com/systemjs/systemjs/#plugins do the job. >> >> Possibly the right syntax would also address the semantic issues that >> were pointed out. >> >> It's not explict but the imported CSS was added to the document head, >> so maybe something like > > Do you really want to always add it to head though? In the case of defining > your own element, don't you want to add it to your custom element's shadow > DOM? > >> ``` >> import '../style/index.css' into document; >> ``` >> >> Would make it more explicit? >> >> ``` >> import '../style/index.css' into customElementTemplate; >> ``` >> >> Is another possibility. > > I think the semantics issue or rather ambiguity we pointed out is still in > the example above. Unless we rely on mime type information provided by the > server, we can't figure out what kind of a resource we're loading (is it > CSS, HTML, or JSON?). We might want to be more explicit in that regard. > > - R. Niwa
