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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 11/13/2017 01:15 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 08/17/2017 12:03 PM, Bradley Meck wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Why isn't a MIME type parameter with the format "type=module" the
> Right Answer for the MIME type registration?

Apologies; I missed the "goal" parameter that does exactly this.
I do wonder why the MIME registration departs from the HTML tag practice
and calls it "goal" rather than "type".