| 17:24 | <leobalter> | Andreu Botella (he/they), Mathieu Hofman the understanding for the ES proposal and the HTML integration was to have the ShadowRealms reusing part of the modules resolution in the sense the loading and static parsing is done once for all Realms and runtime evaluation is done individually for each Realm (including ShadowRealms) when they "request" it. So calling the Module Map the same or different depends if you - like me - use a web dev practicioner point of view. It's the same map for the io and static parsing (syntax errors might be caught earlier), but runtime evaluation is where the map splits per each ShadowRealm. |
| 19:42 | <Andreu Botella (he/they)> | leobalter: When I posted that, I wasn't very clear on the details of how the HTML integration had to happen, so thanks for the clarification. But the issue I filed doesn't mention module maps, which are an HTML spec concept – it mentions module records, which are tied to a realm. |
| 19:43 | <Andreu Botella (he/they)> | The issue is about how the hook requirements are not only insufficient for the security properties, but conflict with them. Though I haven't checked out the HTML integration PR yet, my understanding is that it gets around that by violating the requirements. |
| 21:05 | <leobalter> | Would you mind forwarding this to the github issue? I’m on pto and the github thread might help with an async discussion. Thanks! |
| 21:45 | <Andreu Botella (he/they)> | Would you mind forwarding this to the github issue? I’m on pto and the github thread might help with an async discussion. Thanks! |