- From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:59:28 +0100
- To: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
Michael A. Puls II writes: > 1. IE needs to be patched for <!DOCTYPE html> so that <script > type="application/javascript" and other types mentioned in the RFC > execute the JS code. To clarify, in current IE <script type="application/javascript"> isn't interpreted as JavaScript? With the above suggested doctype-dependent change, code relying on it brittle: a chunk of HTML which gets copied elsewhere or syndicated as part of another page could end up with another doctype. Whereas using text/javascript would be robust against this. > 3. The HTML5 authoring guide needs to suggest using <script > type="application/javascript" or suggest omitting @type if dealing > with browsers that don't execute JS when presented with <script > type="application/javascript". That means authors have to think about this and make a judgement about which browsers their users use -- something which they may guess incorrectly. It's also implicitly condoning writing HTML which targets (or excludes) particular browsers. And it's more complicated that simply saying to use text/javascript everywhere. Indeed, a careful author reading the above such advice would realise the choice is between a term which works for everybody and one which only works for some users; given that no information is provided about the latter having any disadvantage, she may as well always choose the latter, just in case. So we may as well short-cut that process: rather than some complicated conditional text which will result in authors choosing text/javascript, simply clearly say to use text/javascript -- same result, but with less hassle. Smylers
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 10:00:12 UTC