-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
goal parameter not defined in detail #17
Comments
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2046#section-1
There is no need to state that not all consumers/clients will use it. |
@allenwb I think goal symbols are specified in the ECMA262 spec, but we could specify that this parameter only applies to the ones in Syntactic Grammar. What do you think? |
I think there is, since by defining the parameter you are setting the expectation that it will be recognized. |
@bmeck Yes, the official ECMA-262 are the ones listed in the Syntactic Grammar clause you referenced. But what about cjs modules? Technically, they don't parse as either the Script or Module goal. I can imagine that a package manager that serves all kinds of js code could usefully distinguish all three. |
@allenwb CJS is getting a separate MIME nodejs/TSC#371 |
specify that the goal parameter is case insensitive per #17
Wouldn't a possible solution be to amend the HTML spec for this parameter as well? It isn't as intrusive as a completely new MIME. |
What kind of modification do you have in mind? |
(I don't really see how it's less intrusive btw.) |
specify which goal symbols are to be used per #17
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#fetch-a-classic-script Already checks https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#fetch-a-single-module-script Doesn't do the encoding check, but does check the actual The spec here has clarified the goal symbols and case insensitivity, so that should be cleared up. Let me know if spec needs any more clarifications. |
Sure, such modifications could be made, provided there's implementers willing to implement that. |
However, until that's actually proposed and carried through by someone, #17 (comment) stands. |
@annevk I've made such a proposed change to start the process of discussing that then. |
I've seen it used in an ASCII case-insensitive way, but it's not defined as such.
It's also not stated how it's to be used while parsing.
Also, not all hosts are going to use it since this kind of thing was rejected for HTML integration of JavaScript modules. So perhaps there should be some note that not all consumers/clients will use it.
cc @domenic
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: