Re: [www-svg] <none>

"Thomas E Deweese" <>
>     SVG Dynamic requires an implementation provide an ECMAScript
> interpreter.  This would be completely pointless if we didn't provide
> content providers with a standard way to invoke that interpreter.

The type on the script element is required, it changes nothing to also
make the contentScriptType also required.  It in no way needs to invented
for the specifcation - it does not provide a way to "invoke the
ecmascript interpreter" *   It purely specifies the mime type for the
language in use - as the mime-type does not refer to ecmascript it
actually harms it, as we can use the more appropriate
application/x-javascript (with Mozilla, ASV, and Batik all using
JavaScript this wouldn't be unreasonable with current implementations) -
of course x- isn't encouraged in public systems but it's better than
inventing your own when it was wholly unnecessary.

>     If all the SVG developers are all using text/ecmascript but it
> isn't in the SVG standard this changes things how?

The Netscape/Mozilla JavaScript team have previously stated that they
will not support text/ecmascript, I don't know what the SVG enabled
builds are doing, but I would be very surprised if they've let it in the
back door.

>      Also it wouldn't surprise me if at the time 'text/ecmascript' was
> fairly certain to be chosen, perhaps things have changed since then,
> or we may be hearing a slanted view on things and it may still be the
> most likely mime type.

That's certainly a slanted view, the objections to text/* for javascript
have been well founded throughout its history.


* all the ecmascript svg implementations are not interpreted incidently.

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 13:56:31 UTC