[html5] r6212 - [] (0) Define some types that are never going to be scripting types and are ther [...]

[whatwg at whatwg.org]

Author: ianh
Date: 2011-06-10 15:43:11 -0700 (Fri, 10 Jun 2011)
New Revision: 6212

Modified:
   complete.html
   index
   source
Log:
[] (0) Define some types that are never going to be scripting types and are therefore always going to be 'safe' to use as data format types in <script> (even though in practice authors really should be using more specific types).
Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12592

Modified: complete.html
===================================================================
--- complete.html	2011-06-10 22:15:44 UTC (rev 6211)
+++ complete.html	2011-06-10 22:43:11 UTC (rev 6212)
@@ -16409,6 +16409,27 @@
   <p>User agents may support other <a href=#mime-type title="MIME type">MIME
   types</a> and other languages.</p>
 
+  <p>The following <a href=#mime-type title="MIME type">MIME types</a> must not
+  be interpreted as scripting languages:</p>
+
+  <ul class=brief><li>"<code>text/plain</code>"
+   <li>"<code>text/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>text/html</code>"-->
+   <li>"<code>application/octet-stream</code>"
+   <li>"<code>application/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>application/xhtml+xml</code>"-->
+   <!--<li>"<code>image/svg+xml</code>"-->
+
+   <!-- the commented-out ones aren't listed here because they
+   couldn't sanely be interpreted as a scripting language anyway:
+   they're defined to be something else. I just don't want this to
+   devolve into a list of every non-scripting type in existence. -->
+
+  </ul><p class=note>These types are explicitly listed here because they
+  are poorly-defined types that are nonetheless likely to be used as
+  formats for data blocks, and it would be problematic if they were
+  suddenly to be interpreted as script by a user agent.</p>
+
   <!-- this paragraph is also present in the <style> section -->
   <p>When examining types to determine if they support the language,
   user agents must not ignore unknown MIME parameters — types

Modified: index
===================================================================
--- index	2011-06-10 22:15:44 UTC (rev 6211)
+++ index	2011-06-10 22:43:11 UTC (rev 6212)
@@ -16399,6 +16399,27 @@
   <p>User agents may support other <a href=#mime-type title="MIME type">MIME
   types</a> and other languages.</p>
 
+  <p>The following <a href=#mime-type title="MIME type">MIME types</a> must not
+  be interpreted as scripting languages:</p>
+
+  <ul class=brief><li>"<code>text/plain</code>"
+   <li>"<code>text/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>text/html</code>"-->
+   <li>"<code>application/octet-stream</code>"
+   <li>"<code>application/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>application/xhtml+xml</code>"-->
+   <!--<li>"<code>image/svg+xml</code>"-->
+
+   <!-- the commented-out ones aren't listed here because they
+   couldn't sanely be interpreted as a scripting language anyway:
+   they're defined to be something else. I just don't want this to
+   devolve into a list of every non-scripting type in existence. -->
+
+  </ul><p class=note>These types are explicitly listed here because they
+  are poorly-defined types that are nonetheless likely to be used as
+  formats for data blocks, and it would be problematic if they were
+  suddenly to be interpreted as script by a user agent.</p>
+
   <!-- this paragraph is also present in the <style> section -->
   <p>When examining types to determine if they support the language,
   user agents must not ignore unknown MIME parameters — types

Modified: source
===================================================================
--- source	2011-06-10 22:15:44 UTC (rev 6211)
+++ source	2011-06-10 22:43:11 UTC (rev 6212)
@@ -17691,6 +17691,31 @@
   <p>User agents may support other <span title="MIME type">MIME
   types</span> and other languages.</p>
 
+  <p>The following <span title="MIME type">MIME types</span> must not
+  be interpreted as scripting languages:</p>
+
+  <ul class="brief">
+
+   <li>"<code>text/plain</code>"
+   <li>"<code>text/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>text/html</code>"-->
+   <li>"<code>application/octet-stream</code>"
+   <li>"<code>application/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>application/xhtml+xml</code>"-->
+   <!--<li>"<code>image/svg+xml</code>"-->
+
+   <!-- the commented-out ones aren't listed here because they
+   couldn't sanely be interpreted as a scripting language anyway:
+   they're defined to be something else. I just don't want this to
+   devolve into a list of every non-scripting type in existence. -->
+
+  </ul>
+
+  <p class="note">These types are explicitly listed here because they
+  are poorly-defined types that are nonetheless likely to be used as
+  formats for data blocks, and it would be problematic if they were
+  suddenly to be interpreted as script by a user agent.</p>
+
   <!-- this paragraph is also present in the <style> section -->
   <p>When examining types to determine if they support the language,
   user agents must not ignore unknown MIME parameters — types