[whatwg] Will you consider about RFC 4329?

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Mon Apr 5 13:10:10 PDT 2010

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, Swampert wrote:
> In your HTML5 draft standard, the default value for type attribute in 
> script element is "text/javascript". While according to RFC 4329, the 
> MIME type "text/javascript" is obsolete, the proper MIME type for 
> JavaScript is "application/javascript" or "application/ecmascript".

The type everyone uses is text/javascript. What's the point of using 
application/javascript? What problem does it solve?

> And Apache also can serve .js files as application/javascript MIME type. 
> And JavaScript is obviously somewhat a kind of application, we already 
> serve XHTML1.1/XHTML5 webpages as application/xhtml+xml, why don't we 
> use application/* on JavaScript? I think HTML5 should be for the future, 
> not just being pragmatic.

application/ doesn't mean the type describes an application, it means the 
type describes binary application data that doesn't fit other categories.

> Even though IE doesn't welcome the new MIME type ( IE even don't welcome 
> application/xhtml+xml ), changing the default type for script doesn't 
> bring any trouble, and won't break the web. Because when the type 
> attribute is absent, IE can still run the script. We can just let modern 
> browsers regard script as the right MIME type.

I think a better solution would be to fix RFC 4329 to match deployed reality.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list