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

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

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:25:47 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Lsykt-0003q4-FA@wiggum.w3.org>

FremyCompany <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr

--- Comment #29 from FremyCompany <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>  2009-04-12 12:25:46 ---
Here are the advantage from the new MIME types.

In FireFox, you can use different version of JScript.
The default one (and the most ECMAScript 3.0 compilent) use text/javascript or

application/javascript is originally for internal use in the browser (XUL, ...)
and text/javascript was designed for webpages.

You also can specify some specific JScript version (using the MIME-Type), to
have non-ECMAScript version of the JScript compiler to run.

By adding a new MIME-Type "application/ecmascript" that will only be used in
NEW webpages, browsers can be sure that using a more recent version of
ECMAScript is possible.

It's a little like defining a new DOCTYPE for HTML5. Why can't we use the HTML4
doctype ? We're used to ! Because the browser need to know if the page is ready
for using the HTML5 render engine. We've the same problem in JScript.

Currently, no browser really implement "application/ecmascript", so they can
speak about it and be OK to run a specific version of the JScript engine when
this header in encountered. You need to let them this change, even if you don't
see the advantage as of now.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 12 April 2009 12:25:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:00:53 UTC