[w3c/webcomponents] HTML modules spec draft editorial feedback (#783)

Hey @dandclark, @bocupp, @samsebree, @travisleithead. Excited to see the blink-dev intent to implement! I wanted to provide some spec feedback on https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/blob/gh-pages/proposals/html-module-spec-changes.md in the hopes of making the future integration into HTML smoother. It's all generally editorial, but I thought getting it out there sooner would be a good idea.

- We should define the new module record type in the HTML spec, not the ES spec. ES provides a base class, which gets specialized by different host environments which have their own needs---e.g. the WebAssembly spec will have its own type of module record, and HTML modules should have theirs. We shouldn't bake HTML-specific semantics into the core language.
- We should rebase the spec on top of https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1311. I am not sure why that hasn't landed yet, but I've [asked](https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/pull/1311#issuecomment-455039992). That should make things easier in various ways.
- Since HTML modules will continue to be included through `<script type="module">`, we should continue using the script infrastructure. As such, just as a naming thing, the spec-level struct should be "HTML module script", which is a third type of [script](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#concept-script). We should probably then rename the existing "module script" type to "JS module script"; that will be needed anyway when we introduce WebAssembly module scripts.
- [[ScriptName]] is a confusing slot name; I'd suggest [[ExternalScriptURL]]. Then maybe [[ModuleRecord]] could be named [[InlineModuleRecord]]. You could also probably get rid of [[IsInline]], just keying off the null-ness or not of those other two slots.

Overall, very exciting stuff!

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/783