"json" as the fetch destination for json modules is inconsistent with regular json fetches

[noamr]

What is the issue with the HTML Standard?

Following the discussion in #7233, I understand why JSON modules don't have a script destination. However, it's unclear to me why they should have a destination different from regular fetch (i.e. the empty string, orSec-Fetch-Dest: empty. Seems like imported json modules are no different from calling (await fetch()).json() ?

This means, for example, that you need to preload the same JSON file differently if you use it in a fetch vs if you use it in an import, and that doesn't seem right.

@nicolo-ribaudo @annevk

[annevk]

That's true for style sheets or scripts too. I think this is working as designed.

[noamr]

That's true for style sheets or scripts too. I think this is working as designed.

Classic script and module scripts have the script destination.
Regular CSS and CSS modules have the style destination.
fetch(json) and import(json) don't have the same destination.

Am I missing something?

[annevk]

You need to compare fetch(css) and fetch(json).

[noamr]

That's true for style sheets or scripts too. I think this is working as designed.

Classic script and module scripts have the script destination. Regular CSS and CSS modules have the style destination. fetch(json) and import(json) don't have the same destination.

Am I missing something?

Does this mean to say that JSON modules are somehow semantically a different thing

You need to compare fetch(css) and fetch(json).

OK, closing. We still need to support style and json in modulepreload, will open a separate ticket.

[annevk]

It's semantically somewhat distinct yes. With fetch() you don't know what you're fetching. With JSON modules you do. If we had a <json src> element it would presumably also use the json destination.