W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2010

[whatwg] Will you consider about RFC 4329?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:42:21 +0200
Message-ID: <op.vaqikvma64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:32:01 +0200, James Kerr <locki at l0x.in> wrote:
> Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>> 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?
> I believe this has to do with character encoding issues and is the same
> reason that application/xml is preferred over text/xml. MIME types in the
> text/* set apparently have a default encoding of US-ASCII which I can
> imagine may throw up conflicts in some situations given that the primary  
> and generally accepted encoding for XML and HTML documents (and  
> increasingly
> other applications in general) is Unicode based.

In theory this is correct. In practice nobody follows this outdated  
default encoding requirement.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 02:42:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:22 UTC