Brendan Eich (2014-01-27T20:55:25.000Z)
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-02-04T16:00:12.341Z)
David Herman <mailto:dherman at mozilla.com> January 27, 2014 at 12:03 PM > OK, sorry I jumped in the middle of things missing some context. In > fact, I think what we've been planning on proposing is not too far -- > I think -- from what you're talking about. The plan is *not* a module > attribute (that was a think-o on my part, and maybe some > misinformation that crept into this discussion earlier?) but > type="module". That way on old browsers it's ignored and you can add > shims to load it. Shims can be made future-proof via feature > detection, so type="module" can obtain new semantics. The shims word suggests that old-browser-targeted script must DOM-scrape the script type=module text and interpret it with Esprima or similar. This may not perform well enough compared to an AOT compiler, which is another option. Just weighing these. > Moreover, the type="module" should not actually mean "execute right > now and block everything else," but rather "executing asynchronously > once all my module dependencies are loaded and linked." The detail I mentioned 1:1 of type= requiring IANA media types suggests something other than "module". Detail? Not to standardistas (Hi, Bjoern!). Whatever the bootstrap inline script compatibility story, I agree having an inline bootstrap module-script is desirable.