- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:01:08 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12715 --- Comment #6 from piersh@hotmail.com 2011-11-04 20:01:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) > The use case is supported (search for "data block" in the spec around > <script>). However, type="" must contain a valid MIME type, and > x-shader/x-fragment is not a valid MIME type. You could mint something like > text/x-fragment-shader, or use application/octet-stream which is valid and is > guaranteed to not be interpreted as a scripting language by UAs. I'm sorry, but "x-shader/x-fragment" IS a valid MIME type, and acceptable in this usage, according to http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/scripting-1.html#attr-script-type http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#valid-mime-type http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt, section 3.7 The MIME type is not the issue. The issue is that for some reason (that isn't given in the spec), external script blocks are only allowed for "text/javascript" > browsers converged on not fetching such scripts for perf reasons Doesn't the 'defer' attribute, and 'onload' events cover this? besides, for synchronous cases, separating fetch from parse solves most of the perceived performance issues. > Why is XHR not good enough? XHR works, but it's a programmatic one - an ugly one at that. What I'm suggesting is that if a seemingly arbitrary restriction is lifted (modulo security considerations) then a simple, declarative solution reveals itself. Imagine if the same restriction applied to <img>. -- 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 Friday, 4 November 2011 20:01:12 UTC