- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:10:57 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Chris Wilson" <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:48:26 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:
> (1) Work on revising RFC 4329, un-obsoleting "text/javascript"
> (realizing that this is what people use in practice anyway), and
This makes sense to me. I don't see a particularly strong reason to make
<script type=text/javascript>
alert(1)
</script>
non-conforming.
> (2) Take the position that the media type referenced in script/@type has
> different requirements from content type in HTTP response headers; in
> particular, the character set issue goes away as soon as the script is
> inlined into HTML. As UAs seem to ignore the type for external script,
> it would be possible to recommend application/*script for this case
> without breaking anything. The disadvantage for this approach would be
> that the spec would need to promote different types depending on how the
> script is sent over the wire.
I'm pretty sure the type attribute on the script element is always
honored. The media type specified by the HTTP Content-Type header is not
honored however, though the charset parameter is.
(And then there's some mess with the version parameter but I doubt that
works when specified on the HTTP Content-Type header and I sort of hope it
won't ever.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 15:11:51 UTC