RE: The interpretation of script

Also sprach John Cowan: 

>  if you want something to be data, use a media type that implies it is data; 
> if you want something to be code, use a media type that implies that.

Hmm,  is XSLT "code" or "data"?  

-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-xml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-xml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 2:23 PM
To: Norman Walsh
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org
Subject: Re: The interpretation of script

Norman Walsh scripsit:

> I think the implication is that text/javascript is the only type of 
> script that will ever execute automatically. Even if we totally 
> replace JavaScript with some new language in 20 years, we'll still 
> have to shim it in place with JavaScript.

Not necessarily: such a shim could detect that the browser can execute FooScript natively, and shut itself off.  But my central point is the one I made on the call, and is independent of which language(s) the browser can execute natively: if you want something to be data, use a media type that implies it is data; if you want something to be code, use a media type that implies that.

Another example: if I were sending you a JavaScript program by email, I'd want my mail client to tag it text/plain, not application/javascript, for fear that an overly smart mail client at your end might try to execute it.
Unfortunately for me, Mutt still sucks (just less than other clients).

> That's not an impractical solution, I guess, though it strikes me as 
> an inelegant one.

This TF does not live in Elegantia.

-- 
"But I am the real Strider, fortunately,"       John Cowan
he said, looking down at them with his face     cowan@ccil.org
softened by a sudden smile.  "I am Aragorn son  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan of Arathorn, and if by life or death I can save you, I will."  --LotR Book I Chapter 10

Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 23:02:15 UTC