W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Scripts...

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 12:15:44 +0100
Message-ID: <000301c1f908$b10c1c20$3e3c70c2@7020CT>
To: "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
"Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>
> On Sat, 11 May 2002, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>
> > * Ville Skytt wrote:
> > >Maybe a nitpick thingy, but I'd rather not recommend using
> > >"text/javascript" since it is not officially registered in IANA [1].
> > >
> > >"application/x-javascript" would IMHO be a better, more established
> > >choice, that's what for example Apache sends by default.  See also
[2].
> >
> > Using private media types in a public envoirement is worse to me than
> > using a not-yet registered type. But this is offtopic here...
>
> On the contrary, that's exactly what "x-[anything]" media types are for:
> a type known to one or more Client or Server, but not registered.

Well there's a simple practical level that application/x-javascript simply
doesn't work in many UA's (it's okay as the mime-type for resource as it's
ignored anyway by those that ignore it.)

I also percieve it to be a JavaScript rather than ECMAScript mime-type so
would only expect it to be used by JavaScript browsers (NN, Mozilla,
IceStorm, AvantGo.) rather than those using their own implementations

I would like to add my support to the "enthusiastic individual" on
registering a mime-type for it, if they need any assistance just ask.

> And it's not *very* offtopic either: if, for instance, we were to
> contemplate a javascript validator then it would become very relevant
> indeed.

We're contemplating one of those? COOL...

Jim.
Received on Saturday, 11 May 2002 12:26:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:03 GMT