Re: Problem Validating SCRIPT Element with TYPE Attribute

On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 17:40, Jim Ley wrote:
> "Ville Skyttä" <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
> >On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 17:22, Jim Ley wrote:
> >> "Ville Skyttä" <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
> >> >
> >> ><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".
> >>
> >> I believe that MSIE is correct here, the application/x-javascript is an
> >> experimental mime-type invented by the Netscape people to label
> JavaScript,
> >> and since MSIE does not support JavaScript (which has many extensions to
> the
> >> ECMAScript standard that JScript is compliant to.) it is right not to
> honour
> >> it.
> >
> >I would agree with you if they had treated text/javascript the same
> >way.  AFAICT, that's still used to label JavaScript, not JScript or
> >ECMAScript.
> 
> Why?  This wasn't invented for the development of JavaScript, but is
> generally used as a generic marker for all ECMAScript compliant languages,
> indeed javascript is a very devalued trademark and is generally used to
> denote ECMAScript and not just the one implementation.    We've not got a
> clue what text/javascript means, we know for sure what
> application/x-javascript refers to.

Because I wasn't aware of the above interpretation of text/javascript,
and I'm still not quite sure what it means.  It sure does sound more
like "JavaScript" than "all ECMAScript compliant languages" to me.

But it doesn't really matter, as long as there's no registration, there
are only "opinions" and "common practices"; both subjective.  And
expectations will continue to break in subtle ways :ž

-- 
\/ille Skyttä
ville.skytta at iki.fi

Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 11:17:18 UTC