In case a Vue component moves the old component location should link back.

Why/when would that happen? What would that mean if a new, different Vue component was created at the old component location?

In T401158#11060088, @Aklapper wrote:

In case a Vue component moves the old component location should link back.

Why/when would that happen? What would that mean if a new, different Vue component was created at the old component location?

The idea is if the component "Foo.vue" was renamed to "Bar.vue" on wiki, all of the scripts using "Foo.vue" would not have to update to use "Bar.vue" instead, while if someone were to visit "Foo.vue" on wiki they would be redirected to "Bar.vue" in a similar manner for CSS and JS pages.

Vue is not a valid Content model in MediaWiki. Don't you mean the JavaScript content model? I thought they already had redirects??

In T401158#11072206, @Bugreporter2 wrote:

Vue is not a valid Content model in MediaWiki. Don't you mean the JavaScript content model? I thought they already had redirects??

It is, see T340460.

I create a Vue component such as "Foo.vue" similar to this (may need some changes to work with MediaWiki):

<script setup>import Component from './Bar.vue';</script><template><Component/></template>

There is no way to load a vue page except as part of an RL module, so it doesn't matter what syntax is used to annotate a redirect. We just need to pick some reasonable syntax that *looks* like valid vue. It'll never be executed since ResourceLoader sends the code of the redirect target page to browsers.

I propose using <script>import * from 'MediaWiki:Bar.js';</script>.

I think it should actually be valid Vue, because user script authors might want to design Vue components to use in scripts (see T401975 which I created because there isn't an easy way to load Vue components in user scripts).

I do like the format that is given but I don't know if this is valid. If it indeed is valid then we should use this rather than something else.