- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:59:57 +0300
- To: <www-validator@w3.org>
- Cc: "Eglitz Multimedia Solution Provider" <info@eglitz.co.in>
Sierk Bornemann wrote:
> Am 13.06.2008 um 08:35 schrieb Jukka K. Korpela:
>
>> According to RFC 4329 ( http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4329.html ), that
>> value is obsolete; in reality, the preferred "application/javascript"
>> may have more limited browser support.
>
> Only Internet Explorer and some older browsers lack the support for
> the mimetypes "application/javascript" and "application/ecmascript".
Thus, for the vast majority browsing situations, browsers do not support
those inventions. IE is still the dominant browser, whether we like this
or not. My statement "may have more limited browser support" is actually
my candidate for nomination as the understatement of the year.
Even IE 7 does not recognize them. If you use
<script type="application/javascript" ...>...</script>
then IE simply ignores the entire <script> element, since it treats its
language as unknown. This does not happen if you simply omit the
type="..." attribute, so in a sense, the validator's message (though
quite correct of course) can actually make things worse.
If you use the type="..." attribute (as you should by the DTD, but
browsers don't really care if you omit it), use a value that is
recognized by relevant software. On the web, "text/javascript" is the
only sensible option, for now and for a few years at least.
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 10:02:57 UTC