#377: WebAssembly integration with ECMAScript modules
Discussions
Comment by @littledan May 21, 2019 (See Github)
Note, this is not a TC39 proposal, but rather being discussed in the WebAssembly CG and WHATWG HTML repository.
Comment by @kenchris Sep 12, 2019 (See Github)
@cynthia and I have been looking at this in a breakout.
As far as we understand most of this has landed in most browsers as part of Web Assembly MVP. Is that assumption correct? Or are there parts that have not landed yet and you would like our input on? Where should we concentrate out efforts?
Can you share some of the history and status with us? We saw a bunch of issues related to this which are still open:
Nit: WebIDL changed and constructors are separate methods now and not annotations.
Comment by @kenchris Dec 4, 2019 (See Github)
Comment by @littledan Dec 4, 2019 (See Github)
Apologies for my delay here.
As far as we understand most of this has landed in most browsers as part of Web Assembly MVP. Is that assumption correct?
No, this proposal is not implemented in any browser. There are only experimental implementations in tooling.
This proposal has been waiting on:
- Implementer interest. Browsers have reviewed the proposal or even drove/funded parts of it, and I've only heard positive responses. However, implementations have not yet come.
- In the past, top-level await (to handle the asynchronous-ness of Wasm module instantiation). This is now at Stage 3 in TC39, and browser implementations are now coming.
- Now, clarity on whether WebAssembly modules should be specially marked, e.g., with module attributes. @rniwa indicated that he would prefer this, but that it is not a show-stopper the way that this annotation is necessary for JSON modules.
Comment by @kenchris Mar 3, 2020 (See Github)
Talking to @cynthia we both believe the module attributes makes sense, because you could serve JavaScript instead that might be able to load any javascript and even load multiple wasm modules, while we believe that you cannot load additional wasm from a wasm module?
Comment by @cynthia Mar 3, 2020 (See Github)
Aside from the concerns above, both of us think as an early review the design and problems it is trying to solve are both valid and sound. For this review, we are happy to see this move forward - if you have significant design changes that warrant another round of reviews, please let us know and we'll re-open this issue. Thanks for bringing this proposal to our attention.
Comment by @littledan Apr 21, 2020 (See Github)
Thanks for your reviews. Note that, in this proposal, Wasm modules can load other Wasm (or JS) modules, sharing the same privilege level in general. However, many people (e.g., @lukewagner) have raised the feature request that Wasm modules be able to operate in a more limited way, so I wonder if this should be revisited.
OpenedMay 19, 2019
Góðan dag TAG!
I'm requesting a TAG review of:
Further details (optional):
You should also know that...
[please tell us anything you think is relevant to this review]
We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please select one):
Please preview the issue and check that the links work before submitting
For background, see our explanation of how to write a good explainer.