Skip to content

fix: ESM integration notes for latest binary changes #204

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Closed
guybedford wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

fix: ESM integration notes for latest binary changes #204

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 2 additions & 4 deletions design/mvp/Explainer.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1711,10 +1711,8 @@ the same places where modules can be loaded today, branching on the `layer`
field in the binary format to determine whether to decode as a module or a
component.

When the `URL` field of an imported `externname` is present, the `URL` is
used as the module specifier, using the same resolution path as JS module.
Otherwise, the `name` field is used as the module specifier, which requires
[Import Maps] support to resolve to a `URL`.
ESM-integration-compatible components are those which do not use the interface
form of `externname` in imports and exports.

The main question is how to deal with component imports having a
single string as well as the new importable component, module and instance
Expand Down