- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:00:26 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4418
martin@x-hive.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |martin@x-hive.com
------- Comment #2 from martin@x-hive.com 2007-04-04 08:00 -------
I have discussed the feature that modules with a single namespace can be spread
over several physical files (which is, I think, the reason for the "Each module
import names a target namespace and imports an implementation-defined set of
modules that share this target namespace." sentence).
I wonder if there is a use case for that. In my personal opinion, this
complicates the specification and implementations for no benefit. If it also
makes it impossible to properly ban cyclical imports, maybe this feature should
be rethought. That somehow collides with the backwards-compatibility thing,
though.
Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't all this stuff be a lot simpler?
Import a certain module with a certain namespace, make the 'at "..."' location
part completely implementation specific, and disallow cyclic imports between
modules, where modules are identified (and considered distinct) by their
namespaces. Shouldn't that be enough?
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 08:00:28 UTC