Re: [whatwg] The set of supported @type values for <script> is a bit odd

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> The list is at http://www.whatwg.org/specs/**web-apps/current-work/**
> multipage/scripting-1.html#**support-the-scripting-language<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/scripting-1.html#support-the-scripting-language>or
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/**the-script-element.html#**
> scriptingLanguages<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-script-element.html#scriptingLanguages>depending on which you prefer to read.
>
> It seems to include several values that no UA actually supports,
> apparently because of the way the spec uses the same list to deal with both
> @language and @type.  See compat testing data at
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/**show_bug.cgi?id=672814#c6<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=672814#c6>and the testcase I used to generated that data at
> https://bug672814.bugzilla.**mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=**627261<https://bug672814.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=627261>
>
> At the moment our plan in Gecko is to just implement this list as-is, I
> think: it's a superset of what everyone implements, and it just doesn't
> feel worth pushing back on the two Presto-only items and the three "no one
> implements this" items.
>
> This mail is just a heads-up for people in case they want to protest,
> before we go ahead and ship this full list in Gecko.


Meh. Seems fine to me. My mild preference would be to at least remove the
three that no one implements, but I share you're feeling that it's not
worth arguing over either way. Filed an equivalent WebKit bug:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87527.

Ojan