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

Julian Reschke writes:

> 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.
> 
> The situation for script/@type is different when the script is
> in-line; ... 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 would lead HTML 5 recommending different media types for JavaScript
in different places -- something which places a cognitive load on
authors to remember which goes where, and which could lead to scripts
not working in some browsers if confused (the latter being undetected by
an author using a browser which does interpret application/ecmascript).

The alternative of recommending a single media type for all JavaScript
would seem simpler for all concerned, and with no real-world
disadvantage.

> 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?

It would be changing something which currently works.

Adding a new feature inevitably means previous browsers won't have that
feature.  Whereas keeping an existing feature but changing the syntax is
gratuitous: new browsers get no gain in functionality, so there is no
advantage, yet older browsers are cut out.

Smylers

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 10:52:59 UTC