- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 12:15:44 +0100
- To: "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
"Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com> > On Sat, 11 May 2002, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > > > * Ville Skytt wrote: > > >Maybe a nitpick thingy, but I'd rather not recommend using > > >"text/javascript" since it is not officially registered in IANA [1]. > > > > > >"application/x-javascript" would IMHO be a better, more established > > >choice, that's what for example Apache sends by default. See also [2]. > > > > Using private media types in a public envoirement is worse to me than > > using a not-yet registered type. But this is offtopic here... > > On the contrary, that's exactly what "x-[anything]" media types are for: > a type known to one or more Client or Server, but not registered. Well there's a simple practical level that application/x-javascript simply doesn't work in many UA's (it's okay as the mime-type for resource as it's ignored anyway by those that ignore it.) I also percieve it to be a JavaScript rather than ECMAScript mime-type so would only expect it to be used by JavaScript browsers (NN, Mozilla, IceStorm, AvantGo.) rather than those using their own implementations I would like to add my support to the "enthusiastic individual" on registering a mime-type for it, if they need any assistance just ask. > And it's not *very* offtopic either: if, for instance, we were to > contemplate a javascript validator then it would become very relevant > indeed. We're contemplating one of those? COOL... Jim.
Received on Saturday, 11 May 2002 12:26:50 UTC