On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:33 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> John Barton wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com
>> <mailto:allen at wirfs-brock.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     I should have also included:
>>
>>     2A) Hopefully, overtime, the old script syntactic goal will fade
>>     from use, and the module goal will become the norm for new code.
>>
>>
>> Now here is a reason, finally, for all the extra complexity the two goals
>> cause.
>>
>> If we want to kill script, let's not stab it with a dull pencil. Let's
>> make Loader and System be modules, not globals. Then you cannot load modules
>> with <script>, only with <module>.
>
>
> We are not killing <script>> Dream on!
>
> Introducing a new HTML element with implicit CDATA content model will
> require the old
>
> <module>
> <!-- hide script here
> if (a < b) { console.log("<\/script> haha"); }
> -->
> </module>
>
> hacks. This won't do anything (even render the HTML-commented-out fallback
> content) in old browsers, which will make it hard to work in both new and
> old.
>
> Using <script> with a new attribute has several advantages, in contrast:
>
> 1. No need for the return of the HTML comment-hiding hack I invented in
> Netscape 2 to avoid inline script content showing as fallback in
> pre-Netscape-2 browsers.
>
> 2. Old browsers ignore the new attribute will process the content, which
> could be written to work "both ways".

Is a new attribute necessary? What about using @type?

Thanks,

David

> But mainly: no way to kill script. Amending above words: do not dream on,
> wake up!
>
> /be
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Is a new attribute necessary? What about using @type?