John Lenz wrote:
>
>
>         1. a file extension
>
>
>     Talk here is not demand, and I bet we'll regret trying to add a
>     new one. Extensions mapped by servers to media types require
>     server configury, often missed or mangled. This has led in the
>     past to clients hardcoding, e.g. text/javascript for missing
>     content type / type= attribute / Content-Script-Type header in IE
>     (older versions, not sure about 9 and up).
>
>
> This is concerning, an new file extension affects build systems, 
> editors, servers, etc.  This moves use back to something in the source 
> code:
>
> // hey, I'm a module not a script
> "hey, I'm a module not a script";
> ?

It's pretty clear from NPM experience that a new suffix is not needed 
for out-of-line modules. Or are you suggesting that Node.js lacks 
tooling? I'm not offended, just trying to understand.

For NPM read AMD/require.js too.

/be

John Lenz wrote:

> This is concerning, an new file extension affects build systems, 
> editors, servers, etc.  This moves use back to something in the source 
> code:
>
> ```js
> // hey, I'm a module not a script
> "hey, I'm a module not a script";
> ```
> ?

It's pretty clear from NPM experience that a new suffix is not needed 
for out-of-line modules. Or are you suggesting that Node.js lacks 
tooling? I'm not offended, just trying to understand.

For NPM read AMD/require.js too.