On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

What about the node experience helps? They have only one type of input,
modules, ergo only one suffix.


>
> For NPM read AMD/require.js too.


Ditto.


>
>
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140127/59ea070a/attachment.html>

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> 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.

What about the node experience helps? They have only one type of input,
modules, ergo only one suffix.


> For NPM read AMD/require.js too.


Ditto.