forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sjur Moshagen <sju...@mac.com>
Subject Re: Javascript mime type
Date Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:25:54 GMT
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 <sjurnm@mac.com> 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
>> 


Mime
View raw message