- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:21:52 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:48:26 +0200, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> (1) Work on revising RFC 4329, un-obsoleting "text/javascript" >> (realizing that this is what people use in practice anyway), and > > This makes sense to me. I don't see a particularly strong reason to make > > <script type=text/javascript> > alert(1) > </script> > > non-conforming. I don't think anybody has proposed making this non-conforming (!= obsolete). Furthermore, one could argue that the RFC requirements do not really apply here anyway, as, when inlined, the script isn't a MIME (or HTTP) message anyway. >> (2) Take the position that the media type referenced in script/@type >> has different requirements from content type in HTTP response headers; >> in particular, the character set issue goes away as soon as the script >> is inlined into HTML. As UAs seem to ignore the type for external >> script, it would be possible to recommend application/*script for this >> case without breaking anything. The disadvantage for this approach >> would be that the spec would need to promote different types depending >> on how the script is sent over the wire. > > I'm pretty sure the type attribute on the script element is always > honored. The media type specified by the HTTP Content-Type header is not > honored however, though the charset parameter is. Q: do we have information about whether the type attribute is honored for external scripts? > ... BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 15:30:14 UTC