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

Hiya!

> 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.

> You neglect to mention that uses of the module on the web do not
depend on additional distinguishing marks because they have the
type="module" attribute on script tags.

This is out of band information not based upon content. I did not think it
necessary. Should it be mentioned if it is not based upon message content
nor information in the media type fields? I think that this statement also
applies to some tools such as module bundlers as well that are using fields
in package.json files.

> 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!

-Brad

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> First, this seems fine, almost trivial.
>
> This statement implies a problem of greater scope than what you are
> solving:
>
>    It is not possible to fully determine if a Source Text of ECMAScript
>    is meant to be parsed in the Module or Script grammar goals based
>    upon content alone.
>
> My initial reaction to this statement was: so why aren't we seeing a
> request for a new media type?
>
> You neglect to mention that uses of the module on the web do not
> depend on additional distinguishing marks because they have the
> type="module" attribute on script tags.
>
> Nit: There Are So Many Proper Nouns In This Document.  Is that really
> necessary?
>
> On 17 August 2017 at 14:03, Matthew A. Miller
> <linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net> wrote:
> > Hello DISPATCH,
> >
> > The ECMAScript/JavaScript media types are in need of some updates.
> > We've started an informational document[1] to address that.  There
> > hasn't been much mailing list discussion yet, but we are asking now
> > where to direct the work.
> >
> > In consultation with the ART Directors, we ask this document be adopted
> > by DISPATCH as one of its simple administrative documents.
> >
> > The document is <
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bfarias-javascript-mjs >.
> >
> > Issues can be filed on the GitHub repository at <
> > https://github.com/bmeck/I-D/issues >.
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > --
> > - m&m
> >
> > Matthew A. Miller
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dispatch mailing list
> > dispatch@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> >
>