- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:25:47 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6684 FremyCompany <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr --- Comment #29 from FremyCompany <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> 2009-04-12 12:25:46 --- Here are the advantage from the new MIME types. In FireFox, you can use different version of JScript. The default one (and the most ECMAScript 3.0 compilent) use text/javascript or application/javascript. application/javascript is originally for internal use in the browser (XUL, ...) and text/javascript was designed for webpages. You also can specify some specific JScript version (using the MIME-Type), to have non-ECMAScript version of the JScript compiler to run. By adding a new MIME-Type "application/ecmascript" that will only be used in NEW webpages, browsers can be sure that using a more recent version of ECMAScript is possible. It's a little like defining a new DOCTYPE for HTML5. Why can't we use the HTML4 doctype ? We're used to ! Because the browser need to know if the page is ready for using the HTML5 render engine. We've the same problem in JScript. Currently, no browser really implement "application/ecmascript", so they can speak about it and be OK to run a specific version of the JScript engine when this header in encountered. You need to let them this change, even if you don't see the advantage as of now. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 12 April 2009 12:25:55 UTC