- From: Braden McDaniel <braden@lnk.com>
- Date: 18 Jun 2002 12:56:29 -0400
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
On Tue, 2002-06-18 at 12:50, Chris Lilley wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 5:44:11 PM, Tobias wrote: > > > TR> Braden McDaniel wrote: > > > >> Furthermore, the type simply is wrong-headed. "application/ecmascript" > >> is appropriate. > > > TR> ... "because"? > > TR> From my POV, having limited knowledge of the implications related to > TR> MIME Type naming, I think that application/ecmascript is better than > TR> text/ecmascript, because the main characteristic of a portion of ECMA > TR> Script code is being an application; a program. It is also text, but I > TR> don't view this as it's main property. > > Suggest that you read the definition of 'application' in that case. it > doesn't really fit, either. What are you reading from? Per the quote in my other message to you, I think the definition of "application" rather hits the nail on the head as far as the domain of ECMAScript is concerned. Braden
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 12:58:30 UTC