- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:30:42 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908122226520.6420@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > > > > The default, which is used if the [type] attribute is absent, is > > "text/javascript". > > This should be "which is used if the attribute is absent or empty" to > match existing behaviour, and the algorithm below. (Or is this meant to > be part of the conformance requirements for documents? If that's the > case that needs to be clarified.) This is meant to be part of the conformance requirements for documents. How can it be clarified (in a manner consistent with the rest of the spec)? > > When examining types to determine if they support the language, user > > agents must not ignore unknown MIME parameters — types with unknown > > parameters must be assumed to be unsupported. > > What about charset, which is forbidden in conforming documents? Should > that be treated as unknown? IE, Opera and Chromium don't run scripts > with charset, Firefox does (but Firefox just ignores parameters in > general). Clarified. > > The following lists some MIME types and the languages to which they refer: > > > > application/ecmascript > > application/javascript > > application/x-ecmascript > > application/x-javascript > > text/ecmascript > > text/javascript > > text/javascript1.0 > > text/javascript1.1 > > text/javascript1.2 > > text/javascript1.3 > > text/javascript1.4 > > text/javascript1.5 > > text/jscript > > text/livescript > > text/x-ecmascript > > text/x-javascript > > Off that list, only IE and Chromium support text/javascript1.1, > text/javascript1.2, and text/javascript1.3, and nothing supports the > remainder of the text/javascript1.* media types (it appears Firefox and > Opera don't treat @language as "text/" + @language, with Firefox having > a separate list for @language, while Opera just ignores @language > completely). > > As such, I don't think it's entirely useful to have that list as is, as > most aren't supported by multiple browsers. It is intended to be the list that browsers end up supporting once they implement the spec. On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, L. David Baron wrote: > > For what it's worth, Mozilla supports the types: "text/javascript", > "text/ecmascript", "application/javascript", "application/ecmascript", > and "application/x-javascript", and supports a "version" parameter on > all of those types, which is in the range 1.0 to 1.8 (exact string > match, not numeric match), and also an "e4x" parameter taking values "0" > or "1" (for example, "text/javascript; version=1.7"). Which version is > specified turns on/off a number of language features that may be > backwards-incompatible. I haven't mentioned the version parameter, because I think wherever that is defined should also include the list of features that it turns on and off. Ideally, the ECMAScript spec would do that. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 22:31:18 UTC