[RFC] Discuss WASM, WASM Fallback package resolution support

[TheLarkInn]

We are getting closer and closer to seeing the environment start to support Web Assembly module support. I think there is great merit to get a head of the curve in implementing the specification for wasm and wasm-fallback field support so that we don't have a variety of resolution patterns etc.

I would assume we have to take in consideration:

• assembly: field?
• node fallback vs browser fallback ?
• is separate fallback field from module or main?

//CC @nolanlawson @guybedford @sokra @jhnns @substack

[nolanlawson]

I think it's time for a single repo or GitHub org to document all these package.json extensions, including ad-hoc community ones. If nothing else, it's useful to track their support in various bundlers, and to have a shared space where bundler authors and the community can discuss the tradeoffs of one system vs another.

E.g. all these fields:

• "browser"
• "jsnext:main" (deprecated)
• "module" (rollup has best docs AFAICT)
• "es2015" (angular is using it)
• "react-native" (see this PR)
• "chromeapp" (?)
• "electron" (?)
• etc.

package.json is quickly becoming the shared commons where bundlers collaborate on "standards." But, like web standards, I think there ought to be one space where the spec can live. package-browser-field-spec is a great start; can we move it to a new community org, extend it, etc.?

Sorry for derailing the conversation, but it just seems to me that "assembly" is a good time to discuss this. 😃 Especially as many of these fields interact with each other (e.g. "module" with "browser"), it'll become increasingly important to have one standard to point to.

/cc @Rich-Harris

[jhnns]

A common standard definitely makes sense. It should be very simple though 😁