W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > January 2011

Re: The interpretation of script

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:22:54 -0500
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110117222254.GK2461@mercury.ccil.org>
Norman Walsh scripsit:

> I think the implication is that text/javascript is the only type of
> script that will ever execute automatically. Even if we totally
> replace JavaScript with some new language in 20 years, we'll still
> have to shim it in place with JavaScript.

Not necessarily: such a shim could detect that the browser can execute
FooScript natively, and shut itself off.  But my central point is the
one I made on the call, and is independent of which language(s) the
browser can execute natively: if you want something to be data, use a
media type that implies it is data; if you want something to be code,
use a media type that implies that.

Another example: if I were sending you a JavaScript program by email, I'd
want my mail client to tag it text/plain, not application/javascript, for
fear that an overly smart mail client at your end might try to execute it.
Unfortunately for me, Mutt still sucks (just less than other clients).

> That's not an impractical solution, I guess, though it strikes me as
> an inelegant one.

This TF does not live in Elegantia.

-- 
"But I am the real Strider, fortunately,"       John Cowan
he said, looking down at them with his face     cowan@ccil.org
softened by a sudden smile.  "I am Aragorn son  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
of Arathorn, and if by life or death I can
save you, I will."  --LotR Book I Chapter 10


Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 22:23:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 January 2011 22:23:24 GMT