W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2012

Re: [whatwg] The set of supported @type values for <script> is a bit odd

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 19:01:48 -0700
Message-id: <0B95B072-7B87-4F3E-8895-6DE35620CC91@apple.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

On May 25, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> The list is at http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/scripting-1.html#support-the-scripting-language or http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-script-element.html#scriptingLanguages depending on which you prefer to read.
> 
> It seems to include several values that no UA actually supports, apparently because of the way the spec uses the same list to deal with both @language and @type.  See compat testing data at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=672814#c6 and the testcase I used to generated that data at https://bug672814.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=627261
> 
> At the moment our plan in Gecko is to just implement this list as-is, I think: it's a superset of what everyone implements, and it just doesn't feel worth pushing back on the two Presto-only items and the three "no one implements this" items.
> 
> This mail is just a heads-up for people in case they want to protest, before we go ahead and ship this full list in Gecko.

If the weird values are just for compatibility, then I think it would be better to change the spec to drop the ones no one implements. I certainly would not want the list of versioned types to expand over time with new JavaScript versions, so there is no need for it to be a consistent or logical set.

Cheers,
Maciej
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2012 02:02:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:08 GMT