Re: Javascript mime type
Sjur Moshagen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.forrest.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
According to this page: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4101394/javascript-mime-type and many others on the net, application/javascript is the correct answer, but not accepted by MS IE ≤ 8. Which leaves us with text/javascript. But several places (including the above) argues that leaving it empty is fine, and the most compatible. I have no strong opinions, though, just that the present mime type definitely is wrong :) Sjur Den 24. jan 2013 kl. 22:12 skrev Tim Williams: > I'd say text/javascript or application/javascript is the right answer. > Omitting it feels pretty wrong though. > > --tim > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Sjur Moshagen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> In the file '$FORREST_HOME/main/webapp/resources.xmap' there's the following match: >> >> <map:match pattern="**skin/**.js"> >> <map:read src="{lm:skin.js.{2}}" mime-type="application/x-javascript" /> >> </map:match> >> >> x-javascript looks kind of strange and old. This is what wikipedia has to say about javascript mime type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_media_type): >> >> «• application/javascript: ECMAScript/JavaScript; Defined in RFC 4329 (equivalent to application/ecmascript but with looser processing rules) It is not accepted in IE 8 or earlier - text/javascript is accepted but it is defined as obsolete in RFC 4329. The "type" attribute of the <script> tag inHTML5 is optional. In practice, ***omitting the media type of JavaScript programs is the most interoperable solution,*** since all browsers have always assumed the correct default even before HTML5.» >> >> (my emphasis) >> >> If there are no objections, I will just remove the mime type from that (and similar) match(es). >> >> Sjur >>