Road to Stage 2.7

[styfle]

List of todo items we need before stage 2.7, see https://tc39.es/process-document/

• Work out minor details such as ordering of observable effects, handling of invalid inputs, API names, etc.
  • If a module import has an attribute with key type and value bytes, the host is required to either fail the import, or treat it as a Uint8Array backed by an immutable ArrayBuffer. The Uint8Array object is the default export of the module (which has no named exports).
• Receive and address spec text reviews from the assigned reviewers and the appropriate editor group
  • update spec.emu with import bytes #20
  • Set return type to Uint8Array #22
  • Clarify immutability #24
  • Remove SharedArrayBuffer from CreateBytesModule #25
• Produce experimental implementations such as loosely-correct (not for production use) polyfills to aid in validating the design and exploring the details (TLDR, get bundlers to implement behind a flag)
  • Deno 2.4
  • Bun
  • Turbopack
• Investigate integration with relevant host APIs, if necessary
  • HTML Spec PR [import-bytes] add import bytes whatwg/html#11657
• Complete spec text: all semantics, syntax, and APIs are completely described, eg spec.emu (@guybedford might be able to help)
  • update spec.emu with import bytes #20
  • Set return type to Uint8Array #22
  • Clarify immutability #24
  • Remove SharedArrayBuffer from CreateBytesModule #25
• Assigned reviewers have signed off on the current spec text stage 2 reviewers #11
  • @eemeli
  • @jasnell
  • @nicolo-ribaudo
• Relevant editor group has signed off on the current spec text (ECMA-262)
  • @bakkot
  • @syg
  • @michaelficarra
• Add to next module agenda on 2025‑09‑12 to get more feedback
• Add to next plenary agenda on 2025-09-22

[styfle]

Hi @eemeli @jasnell @nicolo-ribaudo @bakkot

Would you be able to sign off on the current spec? https://tc39.es/proposal-import-bytes/

[bakkot]

Current spec looks good as far as it goes but I would like to see the HTML integration as well before this goes forward.

[styfle]

I created a PR to the html spec here: whatwg/html#11657

[jasnell]

Current spec looks good to me!

[eemeli]

Other than the changes I filed as #24, the spec looks good to me.

[nicolo-ribaudo]

The description of CreateBytesModule says that it can take an "immutable SharedArrayBuffer", but that's not something that exists. We only have immutable ArrayBuffers, and we only ever pass immutable ArrayBuffers there in the proposed HTML integration.

Except for that, the spec text looks good.

[eemeli]

Then perhaps the SharedArrayBuffer reference ought to be dropped?

[styfle]

Sounds good, lets remove it:

• Remove SharedArrayBuffer from CreateBytesModule #25

[styfle]

@nicolo-ribaudo Are you able to approve now or is there anything else we need to change?

[nicolo-ribaudo]

Looks good now 👍

[styfle]

Thanks! Can someone explain this?

Relevant editor group has signed off on the current spec text (ECMA-262)

What is "editor group" in this case? That sounds different then the "assigned reviewers".