Re: Using DOM to replace media attribute in the link tag on page load

David Perrell wrote:
>  So long as there's no functional compliance issue, that may be so. At
>  the moment, I know of no spec I need to validate against that
>  requires the new mime types.

I also know of no cases where this is strictly required for “functional 
compliance” (whatever that is). I simply said that the MIME type is 
deprecated (i.e., discouraged).

(This issue is sort of like using quoted attributes versus unquoted in 
HTML; the latter is generally seen as poor practice, but still 
acceptable. There’s little practical effect with regard to either 
approach. The difference, in this case, is formal deprecation (for 
whatever that’s worth to you).)

David Perrell wrote:
>  I have no qualms about conditionally using something that has a
>  visual or functional effect, but I see no purpose in conditionally
>  providing two different content descriptions when one will suffice.

There are functional differences for application/ecmascript assuming 
that the script is in its own file, at least (e.g., the version 
parameter). I haven’t tested whether current browsers that support the 
new application/* types actually adhere to the RFC  in this regard though.

David Perrell wrote:
>  Obsoleting of text/javascript does not imply we must immediately
>  change all our web pages.

I didn’t say that you need to go change all of your existing Web pages. 
Presumably, that’s why the text/* types were registered.

David Perrell wrote:
>  Text/javascript wasn't registered until RFC4329, and yet its prior
>  use did not contravene any standard.

At the same time, there was no standardized MIME type for 
JavaScript/ECMAScript so it was a solution with undefined behavior. 
Treating text/javascript as an unrecognized MIME type and supporting 
only something such as text/x-javascript wouldn’t have contravened any 
standard either. I think this kind of thing was the whole point of 
having someplace to go to that explicitly recommends some MIME types and 
discourages others (i.e., RFC4329).

David Perrell wrote:
>  Now it's registered only to be obsoleted, but I see nothing in the
>  RFC to indicate that use of an obsolete mime type makes a web page
>  non-compliant.

Again, the MIME type is discouraged, not banned. Use of text/javascript 
affects compliance; i.e., you are “conditionally compliant” instead of 
“unconditionally compliant”. What value you place on that is, of course, 
up to you.

— Patrick Garies

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 10:12:34 UTC