Re: [dispatch] Dispatching Work on ECMAScript Media Types Updates

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 17 August 2017 at 20:03, Bradley Meck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> My initial reaction to this statement was: so why aren't we seeing a
> request for a new media type?
>
> This was discussed in a few different places, ultimately culminating in no
> body wanting to take that route. You can read some info on that in the link
> to the informative TC39 issue https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/322. It
> appears you might be more interested in the HTML side of things, which would
> be that a new media type would not load with the specification they have
> already started deploying ( there was an issue about this on HTML side in
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/558 ). Some discussion about a `mode`
> parameter instead of media type is in an issue on this proposal
> https://github.com/bmeck/I-D/issues/1#issuecomment-322545837 . That might be
> the better route since it will work in web browsers.

I'm not questioning the decision (though I appreciate the pointers,
thanks), just pointing out that there is an obvious question arising
from your introductory text.  You don't need to defend the decision,
but you should answer that question by mentioning that link metadata
(type=module) ensures that no one else asks the question.

The discussion (and outcome if I'm reading correctly) on #1 leading to
mode= certainly seems sensible.  Please pick a default of mode=script
and save us all headaches.

Question, mainly for my gratification: if I include a module in a
<link rel=preload>, how do I signal that it's a module?  You can't use
a type= attribute there, because that key is taken for something else
(media type).  I know that browsers like doing things like pre-parsing
in addition to preloading.

I have to assume that you just use native es6 modules keywords rather
than importScript in workers, so you don't need explicit
identification there.

>> Nit: There Are So Many Proper Nouns In This Document.  Is that really
>> necessary?
>
> I think this is in part a stylistic thing of my writing. I tend to avoid
> pronouns and am capitalizing grammar productions in the same manner as the
> ECMAScript specification. We could make stylistic changes though!

Consistency good >> Too Many Capitals Are Bad

(In other words, don't change on my account.)