- From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
- Date: 21 Jun 2003 17:59:45 +0300
- To: www-validator@w3.org
On Sat, 2003-06-21 at 14:26, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > The HTML specifications tell us to use text/javascript for JavaScript, in > effect. This is not just fake, it is simply wrong by the authoritative > specification of Internet media types (MIME types) as defined in > RFCs 2045 through 2049. There is no registered media type text/javascript. > According to RFC 2046, "Any format without a rigorous and public > definition must be named with an 'X-' prefix". > > To conclude, if you wish to comply with the syntax specified in HTML > recommendations, and thereby pass validation against a doctype specified > there, and you use a script element, you have to violate a widely > deployed, standards-track Internet protocol by the IETF. <script type="application/x-javascript"> would be most "correct" [1], and was the generally accepted best practice too until MSIE 6.something decided to ignore all scripts with type="application/x-javascript". <script type="text/javascript"> AFAIK works with all relevant browsers, but as Jukka noted, it's against the media type RFCs. See <http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/scripts.html#type> for more related info. [1] Even better if there would be a registered MIME type for (Java/ECMA)Script. -- \/ille Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi
Received on Saturday, 21 June 2003 10:59:53 UTC