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

[whatwg] Will you consider about RFC 4329?

From: James Kerr <locki@l0x.in>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:19:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4BBB6D28.4060203@l0x.in>
-----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

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