- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:23:00 +0200
- To: "Michael A. Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Michael A. Puls II wrote: > On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:23:40 -0400, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Sierk Bornemann wrote: >>> Because I am unsatisfied and displeased, how bug #6684 is handled and >>> put down, I put this bug #6684 out of the edge of Bugzilla and onto >>> the table of the WG to be noticed (and eventually discussed) by a >>> broader audience: >>> [Bug 6684] Disregard of RFC 4329 and IANA MIME Media Types >>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6684 >>> Thanks in advance for your interest, your opinions and helpful >>> suggestions are welcome. >> >> Unless there is a problem with the officially registered MIME types, >> HTML5 should recommend using them. > > Do you mean recommending for just serving or do you also mean for @type > for <script>? Primarily the first. If there's nothing wrong with the recommendation to use application/ecmascript as Content-Type (in the HTTP message), then HTML5 should just conform to that. Statements like "this is a willful violation of RFC...." *will* cause problems further down the road, so they should either be removed, or a rational should be provided. > If the former, there's no problem doing that. If the latter, consider: > > Serving scripts as application/javascript is not a problem. > > Using <script type="application/javascript" is not a problem for > Firefox, Opera and Safari. (Not sure about other mobile browsers that > execute JS etc.) The situation for script/@type is different when the script is in-line; in which case the content's encoding is in fact defined by the containing page (hopefully :-). I have no problem for this case being handled differently; but if it is, I wouldn't consider it a "willful violation" of that RFC. That being said: HTML5 defines a lot of things that won't work in some or all of the existing browsers, so how exactly is this situation different? > ... BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 10:23:46 UTC