Request ContentType

[sergeykish]

May I ask to consider use of ContentType?

The keyword "if"

import value from "module" if { type: "json" };

implies that request would be issued with ContentType:*/* and response would be discarded based on ContentType. Which is wasteful, we already know what we accept.

Mechanism already defined in HTML <script language=vbscript type=text/vbscript>. Unfortunately used by type="module" but

<script src="foo.css" type="text/css"></script>
<script src="foo.json" type="application/json"></script>
<script src="foo.wasm" type="application/wasm"></script>

makes no requests. So it can be defined as "import WASM module".

It covers the need for Content Negotiation:

<script src="foo" type="application/json,application/wasm;q=0.9">

may be not pretty, but functional, tested in transition to PNG.

Currently there is a need to define "new types", searching for "type that is not MIME type" may be hard. While we are half there with image/*, audio/*, video/*.

Please reconsider use of alias (iftype) as core dependency. It may be built on top:

import value from "module" with { typeAlias: "json" };
contentTypeAlias.define("javascript", "application/javascript,application/javascript-binast")
contentTypeAlias.define("json|wasm", "application/json,application/wasm;q=0.9")

Thank you.

[xtuc]

It's currently unclear to us if we should communicate the expected type to the server, see whatwg/html#5640.

My understanding is that content negotation is not what we want for the web anymore, it's documented here https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Why_not_conneg.

[nicolo-ribaudo]

The proposal has been updated to allow import assertions/attributes to affect the module loading process, so that HTML could send headers such as Accept: to the server.