- From: James Kerr <locki@l0x.in>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:19:36 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Apologies, I've just noticed that I accidentally sent a couple of further posts directly to Anne instead of to the mailing list. I include them and Anne's response here for the benefit of the list discussion... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:40:48 +0200, James Kerr <locki at l0x.in> wrote: > Perusing the script element spec (the last I knew, HTML5 had negated the > "type" attribute entirely), I'm left wondering... Why does there have to be a default type at all? Isn't that the purpose of the HTTP content-type > header of the file referenced in the "src" attribute? (The same applies for the object element - it can have a "type" attribute, but doesn't need one) I don't see the point, unless it's purely there as meta-data, in which case a default is unnecessary...? Euhm, inline scripts? > As a side note, the uptake of application/javascript will likely increase > from this point onwards, as the recently released IE9 preview supports its use where previous versions did not (the biggest sticking point of adoption as far as I know). Taking this into consideration, and the fact that > > ? it will be the first version of that browser with HTML5 features > ? application/javascript is the official MIME type (however little > difference it actually makes in reality) > > would suggest no real reason not to go with it? Authoring material, author mindset, backwards compatibility, etc? RFCs can be fixed. - -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:28:48 +0200, James Kerr <locki at l0x.in> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Euhm, inline scripts? > > OK, but what I was getting at was also : doesn't each browser only support > one scripting language? JScript on IE and Javascript on the others. Meaning > there is no actual choice to be made and each browser will interpret the > contents of a <script> with the language it supports... Not if the type attribute specifies something we do not support, but I agree that the default can be any type that matches JavaScript in theory as it is not exposed. - -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iF4EAREIAAYFAku7bSgACgkQA5dpS+2BZayhlQEAgzPWWdRG57ovLP8h/KWIh6ca TZiImBSzvvt0wAXZb+gA/RjO3FrG7QkdBCsdLX+POskYlC7EZTMiNQFyVDtK4G22 =zzEp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 10:19:36 UTC