Advanced
Mailing List Archive

Mailing List Archive

  1. Home >
  2. Forrest>
  3. Dev
Javascript mime type
sjurnm at mac
Jan 24, 2013, 1:01 PM
Post #1 of 6 (3254 views)
Permalink
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
Re: Javascript mime type [ In reply to ]
williamstw at gmail
Jan 24, 2013, 1:12 PM
Post #2 of 6 (3198 views)
Permalink
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
>
Re: Javascript mime type [ In reply to ]
sjurnm at mac
Jan 24, 2013, 1:25 PM
Post #3 of 6 (3195 views)
Permalink
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
>>
Re: Javascript mime type [ In reply to ]
williamstw at gmail
Jan 24, 2013, 1:32 PM
Post #4 of 6 (3190 views)
Permalink
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Sjur Moshagen <sjurnm@mac.com> wrote:
> 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 :)

I'd go with text/javascript - it's a reasonable default. It's worth
noting that we serve it as 'application/javascript' because that's the
default mime-type mapping for httpd[1].

--tim

[1] - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/conf/mime.types
Re: Javascript mime type [ In reply to ]
williamstw at gmail
Jan 24, 2013, 1:33 PM
Post #5 of 6 (3178 views)
Permalink
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Sjur Moshagen <sjurnm@mac.com> wrote:
>> 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 :)
>
> I'd go with text/javascript - it's a reasonable default. It's worth
> noting that we serve it as 'application/javascript' because that's the
> default mime-type mapping for httpd[1].

Ooops.. dangling pronoun:( "we" == forrest.apache.org :)

--tim
Re: Javascript mime type [ In reply to ]
sjurnm at mac
Jan 24, 2013, 1:35 PM
Post #6 of 6 (3188 views)
Permalink
Den 24. jan 2013 kl. 22:33 skrev Tim Williams:

> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Sjur Moshagen <sjurnm@mac.com> wrote:
>>> 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 :)
>>
>> I'd go with text/javascript - it's a reasonable default.

Agrre, I'll commit.

>> It's worth
>> noting that we serve it as 'application/javascript' because that's the
>> default mime-type mapping for httpd[1].
>
> Ooops.. dangling pronoun:( "we" == forrest.apache.org :)

:)

Sjur

©2024 GT.net. A Gossamer Threads company.
5th Floor, 455 Granville St., Vancouver, BC V6C 1T1, Canada | Legal