➜
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
Created on 2018-10-02 22:28 by mylesborins, last changed 2022-04-11 14:59 by admin.
| Pull Requests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| URL | Status | Linked | Edit |
| PR 9678 | closed | mylesborins, 2018-10-02 22:39 | |
| PR 30740 | open | wangjiahua, 2022-01-21 08:03 | |
| Messages (7) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg326920 - (view) | Author: Myles Borins (mylesborins) * | Date: 2018-10-02 22:28 | |
I propose to change the mapping of file extension .js to mime type "text/javascript" from "application/javascript. "text/javascript" is the currently documented best practice in the whatwg HTML spec. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/scripting.html#scriptingLanguages:javascript-mime-type |
|||
| msg326923 - (view) | Author: Ammar Askar (ammar2) *  |
Date: 2018-10-02 23:21 | |
It should be noted that the HTML spec also says: The term "JavaScript" is used to refer to ECMA-262, rather than the official term ECMAScript, since the term JavaScript is more widely known. Similarly, the MIME type used to refer to JavaScript in this specification is text/javascript, since that is the most commonly used type, despite it being an officially obsoleted type according to RFC 4329. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dependencies:willful-violation |
|||
| msg327006 - (view) | Author: Andrew Svetlov (asvetlov) * |
Date: 2018-10-03 19:43 | |
By RCF 4329 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4329#page-9 text/javascript is obsoleted, application/javascript is a part of the standard. WhatWg is a controversial group. Their specs don't always follow official standards but Python does. Sorry, I should decline the proposal. Feel free to raise an issue again if IETF will change their opinion. |
|||
| msg327007 - (view) | Author: Myles Borins (mylesborins) * | Date: 2018-10-03 19:49 | |
There is a IETF proposal that would make "text/javascript" no longer obsolete. Will revisit at the point this lands https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs/ |
|||
| msg327010 - (view) | Author: Andrew Svetlov (asvetlov) * |
Date: 2018-10-03 19:55 | |
We can return to the question when (and if) the draft will be accepted. |
|||
| msg345883 - (view) | Author: Myles Borins (mylesborins) * | Date: 2019-06-17 17:49 | |
Hey All, I'd like to reopen this. We are almost done with the IETF standardization of .mjs, and part of this process is making obsolete application/javascript in favor of text/javascript. --> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs/ |
|||
| msg411109 - (view) | Author: Oleg Iarygin (arhadthedev) * | Date: 2022-01-21 11:06 | |
Myles, it looks like the draft 14 contains a mismatch in 6.2.1: > # 6.2.1. text/ecmascript > > Type name: application > Subtype name: ecmascript In header it's `text`, in details it's `application`. Is it intended? I believe that a typo wouldn't pass though fourteen revisions but nevertheless, just to be safe. |
|||