HTML5: Probably, wrong JavaScript media type.

Dear Sirs,

Have not you forget to alter the media type «text/javascript» to 
«application/javascript» on HTML 5 Specification pages?

Recently, investigating acceptability of specifying a version parameter 
for Javascript’s media type I visited [the next time] IANA repository 
pages and discovered, for myself, there, an RFC 4329, Scripting Media 
Types («http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4329). [The version may be 
critical. I have written about it to Bjöern Höehrmann.) And it said:

‘Use of the "text" top-level type for this kind of content is known to 
be problematic.
…
‘The media types: application/javascript, … – which are also defined in 
this document, are intended for common use and should be used instead.’.

Besides  Client-Side JavaScript Guide of version 1.3, in Chapter 9, 
«Embedding JavaScript in HTML» 
(«http://web.archive.org/web/20000815081640/http://developer.netscape.com/docs/manuals/communicator/jsref/js13.html), 
says:

‘External JavaScript files should have the file name suffix .js, and the 
server must map the .js suffix to the MIME type 
application/x-javascript, …’.

While, in the chapter 4, «The elements of HTML»; section 4.3, 
«Scripting» (see the URI 
«http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-html5-20100304/semantics.html#script); I 
am reading:

‘If the language is not that described by "text/javascript", then the 
type attribute must be present, as described below.’

and,

‘The default, which is used if the attribute is absent, is 
"text/javascript".’.

And so on.

               ┌─────────────────────────┐
┌──────────────┤ Soap block of the text. ├───────────────
│              └─────────────────────────┘
│     Mama mia! We seems to make a blunder. And, why, I did glanced 
through the draft before 15 July 2014, after all. Actually, I just tried 
to do so. For I was so lacking in time and it is so hard, every time, 
for me to express myself in English that I abandoned the idea to read 
intelligently more than just a page about the notion «obsolete». And 
even this, the part about obsolete, I did not understand completely.

┌───────────────────────┐
│ Why about «obsolete»? │
└───────────────────────┘
Sometimes I get worried that tonnes of old HTML documents may become 
unreadable if new UAs become unable to interpret and render correctly 
HTML of previous versions. You know, there may be megabytes of important 
information written, presented, in previous versions of HTML, in the 
world. The information wrote by our precursors, some of whom, alas, may 
have died.
•───────────────────────•

More over. If I remember correctly, my system failed to download the 
full draft. So, unfortunately, I had to satisfy myself only with a 
couple of topics from the draft to view.
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Regards,
Cyril.

Received on Thursday, 21 August 2014 11:54:53 UTC