TC39 Module Harmony on 2023-07-18

15:22	<littledan>	Should we be asking the various Twitter clones to weigh in on our `source` bike shed?
15:26	<littledan>	Also, how is https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9486 going? Domenic's suggestions make sense to me; are we going to make a new version that adopts those suggestions?
15:36	<nicolo-ribaudo>	Also, how is https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/9486 going? Domenic's suggestions make sense to me; are we going to make a new version that adopts those suggestions? Domenic's suggestions match what is already included in the initial commit, and there is no answer yet to what the `Accept:` header for JSON should be. I'm mostly waiting for Anne to express his opinion since he has been pinged, but I read in some matrix room that he has limited availability for the next few weeks.
15:37	<nicolo-ribaudo>	Should we be asking the various Twitter clones to weigh in on our `source` bike shed? I'm worried about asking to the whole world to express an opinion, because people that do not already follow the proposal are probably not going to cast an informed "vote"
15:56	<nicolo-ribaudo>	I'm in a place with a terrible internet connection today, so I won't probably be able to participate in the meeting (I will try to join anyway, but I have low expectations 😅)
16:03	<littledan>	Domenic's suggestions match what is already included in the initial commit, and there is no answer yet to what the `Accept:` header for JSON should be. I'm mostly waiting for Anne to express his opinion since he has been pinged, but I read in some matrix room that he has limited availability for the next few weeks. Hmm, I thought Domenic was indicating what the Accept: header should be: it should be whatever falls out of the current algorithm when the destination is ""
16:03	<Kris Kowal>	I will be on the call shortly. Have not read backlog. Have no topic. Eager to hear about Bergen.
16:03	<littledan>	(I have a conflict today and won't attend unless someone indicates that it's important for me to be present and skip my conflict)
16:05	<nicolo-ribaudo>	Hmm, I thought Domenic was indicating what the Accept: header should be: it should be whatever falls out of the current algorithm when the destination is "" Which is `/` (and it's what the PR already does), but ideally we would have something more specific since then the browser will assert that it's JSON
16:06	<littledan>	Which is `/` (and it's what the PR already does), but ideally we would have something more specific since then the browser will assert that it's JSON well, so, I guess Domenic voiced his opinion (keep it that way) and now we'll see what Anne says?
16:06	<littledan>	there should be someone in Mozilla to ping too, right? Maybe Simon?
16:07	<nicolo-ribaudo>	I asked to the SpiderMonkey person that is working on import attributes (mgaudet) to forward that issue to the relevant mozilla people
16:09	<Luca Casonato>	Kris Kowal: just waiting on you :)
16:10	<littledan>	I asked to the SpiderMonkey person that is working on import attributes (mgaudet) to forward that issue to the relevant mozilla people If you don't hear back from them, you could work in the other direction with the Mozilla WHATWG editor
16:11	<littledan>	anyway sounds good
16:17	<Luca Casonato>	https://github.com/tc39/proposal-source-phase-imports/issues/53 https://github.com/tc39/proposal-source-phase-imports/issues/54
17:05	<nicolo-ribaudo>	Did you talk about anything other than the name bikeshedding?
17:06	<Kris Kowal>	We talked a little about what proposal to dig into next. I’m reminded that I need to break up Compartments.
17:08	<Kris Kowal>	I am going to propose `descriptor`. Mathieu Hofman brought it up and I was initially hesitant, but then we had a great conversation about how to frame this phase in a way that neither characterizes it as before or after another phase. Source, coming to think about it more deeply, implies after source in the way Prelink (or unlinked) implies before link. So, we talked a bit about what exactly was intrinsic to the handle currently named `ModuleSource`, and that is that it is a descriptor of the bindings and behavior necessary for the module system to construct a namespace, environment, and linkage.
17:09	<Kris Kowal>	We also observed that we would ideally avoid `moduleInstance.source.source` as the way to express the actual source text. The “descriptor” is actually a handle that retains the “object code”, not the “source code”, so “source” is further a misnomer.
17:10	<Kris Kowal>	We’re all in agreement that `source` is our best name yet and that all of the options are imperfect, including source. I’m going to propose `descriptor` to see if it gets some traction from the `source` skeptics. If it doesn’t, we’re fine rolling with `source`.
17:23	<nicolo-ribaudo>	Thanks for the summary!
17:24	<Kris Kowal>	https://github.com/tc39/proposal-source-phase-imports/issues/53#issuecomment-1640654943
17:28	<nicolo-ribaudo>	Did anyone brought up the potential naming conflict with property descriptors, that already exist as a word in the language (`getOwnPropertyDescriptor`)?
17:28	<nicolo-ribaudo>	(but good idea, I like it much more than `parsed`)
17:31	<Richard Gibson>	I like the past participles ("resolved", "parsed", "linked", etc.)
17:55	<Kris Kowal>	I like the past participles ("resolved", "parsed", "linked", etc.) That would be consistent if we decided that in general every phase is synecdoche for “the development of a module such that it is at least: resolved, located, fetched, parsed, linked, executed (to the first await), resolved (such that the promise returned by a dynamic import has been resolved with the namespace object), and settled (such that if the module happens to be thenable…)”
18:00	<Kris Kowal>	Nobody brought up property descriptor. I did mention that the last phase of Compartment has a notion of a module descriptor that contains a source but isn’t a source. I think we’ve designed our way out of the need for such a thing (aliases and such can be modeled as virtualization of a `ModuleDescriptor`, e.g., `new ModuleDescriptor({ bindings: [ { exportAllFrom: './alias.js' } ]})`.
18:01	<Kris Kowal>	Or for inter-compartmental aliases, `new otherEvaluators.ModuleDescriptor({ bindings: [ { exportAllFrom: './alias.js' } ] });`.