- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:45:44 +0000
- To: public-html@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6684 Summary: Disregard of RFC 4329 and IANA MIME Media Types Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: All URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#scripting-1 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Spec bugs AssignedTo: dave.null@w3.org ReportedBy: sierkb@gmx.de QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: ian@hixie.ch, mike@w3.org, public-html@w3.org RFC 4329 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt does exist since April 2006. It is about "Scripting Media Types" and mandates the mimetypes "application/javascript" and "application/ecmascript" in favour to the as "obsolete" labeled "text/*" mimetypes as well as the text/x-* and application/x-* mimetypes. See also IANA Text Media Types http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/ and IANA Application Media Types http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/ . Nevertheless, (X)HTML5 seems to completely disregard this particular RFC 4329, when it comes to scripting media types and still favours and promotes the use of "text/javascript", although RFC 4329 mandates/recommends NOT to do so. Is there any good reason to just ignore that particular RFC and IANA's assign? Why does HTML5 ignore it, whereas relevant software vendors like Mozilla/Firefox, Apple/WebKit/Safari, Opera, Apache/HTTP server don't? As far as I know, all major browser vendors (except Microsoft) have adjusted their browser software to match this RFC 4329 and to comply with IANA. Even Apache.org has adjusted its HTTP server's mime.types file to match RFC 4329 and IANA. Why not (X)HTML5 either? What are the reasons? Is there actually a cogent reason NOT to follow RFC 4329 and IANA? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 2009 11:45:53 UTC