W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Re: The script language attribute

From: Philip Taylor <philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:09:46 +0100
Message-ID: <46E2D75A.5030209@zaynar.demon.co.uk>
To: Mihai Sucan <mihai.sucan@gmail.com>
CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>

Mihai Sucan wrote:
> The spec only defines a very simple way to process the language 
> attribute - which actually, most likely, breaks backwards-compatibility. 
> Here's why: if the UAs would implement the algorithm, they will end up 
> having things like:
> 
> <script language="JavaScript1.2">
> <script language="Mocha">
> ...
> 
> Interpreted as:
> <script type="text/JavaScript1.2">
> <script type="text/Mocha">
> ...
> 
> Which is obviously wrong - no current UA implements these MIME types.

Some UAs do - from 
http://canvex.lazyilluminati.com/misc/jsversions2.html I see:

IE7: text/javascript1.(1|2|3), text/jscript, text/livescript, 
text/ecmascript, text/javascript.

Firefox 3: text/ecmascript, text/javascript, 
text/(java|ecma)script;version=1.n for n <= 8, 
text/(java|ecma)script;e4x=1. (Some of those versions have different 
language syntax.)

Opera 9.5: text/jscript, text/ecmascript, text/javascript, 
text/x-javascript, text/x-ecmascript.

Safari 3: text/javascript1.(1|2|3), text/jscript, text/livescript, 
text/ecmascript, text/javascript.


http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt mentions most of those, and defines 
text/javascript and text/ecmascript (but defines them as obsolete).

Depending on which ones are needed for interoperability, it does sound 
sensible to map some language and type values onto the standard defined 
JavaScript MIME types, or to list them in the "3.17.1.1. Scripting 
languages" section.

-- 
Philip Taylor
philip@zaynar.demon.co.uk
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2007 17:09:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:07 GMT