Which versions are required to be supported by implementations?

[littledan]

The v3 specification defines one format, and the v2 specification defines another one, in addition to describing the v1 format. For a modern implementation of source-map, what should be supported? Is the idea to migrate everyone to the v3 format, and remove v2 and v1 support from implementations, or keep 2-3 versions around for a longer time?

Similarly, the v3 specification indicates that //# is preferred to reference the source-map location from JavaScript, but that the //@ form is also permitted. Is a modern implementation required to support both forms?

[tromey]

I tend to think which versions an implementation should support is up to the implementation -- what its developers expect to see, etc.

FWIW, Firefox devtools only support version 3, but they do support the //@ form. This is enforced in the source-map library.

[littledan]

Do you think it'd be useful to standardize expectations among all sourcemap usages? I'd worry that differences here result in broken debugging experiences for some people. If it's really widespread, we could standardize on those semantics you describe.

[hybrist]

I think the de-facto expectation is that tools support both comment forms (since both are allowed) but not source map spec version but 3 (since the older ones aren't really in use anymore).

[littledan]

Can we explicitly document the answer somewhere?

[jkup]

Created #54 to track comment formats

[jkup]

This will be resolved by #94