- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:10:10 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Swampert wrote: > > In your HTML5 draft standard, the default value for type attribute in > script element is "text/javascript". While according to RFC 4329, the > MIME type "text/javascript" is obsolete, the proper MIME type for > JavaScript is "application/javascript" or "application/ecmascript". The type everyone uses is text/javascript. What's the point of using application/javascript? What problem does it solve? > And Apache also can serve .js files as application/javascript MIME type. > And JavaScript is obviously somewhat a kind of application, we already > serve XHTML1.1/XHTML5 webpages as application/xhtml+xml, why don't we > use application/* on JavaScript? I think HTML5 should be for the future, > not just being pragmatic. application/ doesn't mean the type describes an application, it means the type describes binary application data that doesn't fit other categories. > Even though IE doesn't welcome the new MIME type ( IE even don't welcome > application/xhtml+xml ), changing the default type for script doesn't > bring any trouble, and won't break the web. Because when the type > attribute is absent, IE can still run the script. We can just let modern > browsers regard script as the right MIME type. I think a better solution would be to fix RFC 4329 to match deployed reality. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 13:10:10 UTC