W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [Bug 6684] Disregard of RFC 4329 and IANA MIME Media Types

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:23:00 +0200
Message-ID: <49D49204.4080209@gmx.de>
To: "Michael A. Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>
CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:23:40 -0400, Julian Reschke 
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> Sierk Bornemann wrote:
>>> Because I am unsatisfied and displeased, how bug #6684 is handled and 
>>> put down, I put this bug #6684 out of the edge of Bugzilla and onto 
>>> the table of the WG to be noticed (and eventually discussed) by a 
>>> broader audience:
>>>  [Bug 6684] Disregard of RFC 4329 and IANA MIME Media Types
>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6684
>>>  Thanks in advance for your interest, your opinions and helpful 
>>> suggestions are welcome.
>>
>> Unless there is a problem with the officially registered MIME types, 
>> HTML5 should recommend using them.
> 
> Do you mean recommending for just serving or do you also mean for @type 
> for <script>?

Primarily the first. If there's nothing wrong with the recommendation to 
use application/ecmascript as Content-Type (in the HTTP message), then 
HTML5 should just conform to that.

Statements like "this is a willful violation of RFC...." *will* cause 
problems further down the road, so they should either be removed, or a 
rational should be provided.

> If the former, there's no problem doing that. If the latter, consider:
> 
> Serving scripts as application/javascript is not a problem.
> 
> Using <script type="application/javascript" is not a problem for 
> Firefox, Opera and Safari. (Not sure about other mobile browsers that 
> execute JS etc.)

The situation for script/@type is different when the script is in-line; 
in which case the content's encoding is in fact defined by the 
containing page (hopefully :-).

I have no problem for this case being handled differently; but if it is, 
I wouldn't consider it a "willful violation" of that RFC.

That being said: HTML5 defines a lot of things that won't work in some 
or all of the existing browsers, so how exactly is this situation different?

 > ...

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 10:23:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:33 GMT