[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Fwd: RE: script types...
To finish this conversation, per this morning's telecon... All of the executable examples in Ch.5 use text/ecmascript, except 5.2.5 which used application/ecmascript. None used language="JavaScript". 5.2.5 appears to work in IE. That is because the underlying code in the linked ex_Picture.html actually has text/ecmascript. Only the code listing in the HTML text of the spec has application/ecmascript (obviously an editor's oversight from the past, when the underlying code was corrected so that it would work.) I tested: changed underlying code to application/ecmascript, and indeed the example failed to execute correctly in IE. So I changed it back, and will "proposed change" to the code listing in the EXAMPLE block of 5.2.5. CONCLUSION (empirical): all examples and all test cases should use text/ecmascript. -Lofton. At 02:04 PM 5/24/2006 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >I thought I forwarded this to the TC list, but can't find it... > >>From: Robert Orosz <roboro@AUTO-TROL.com> >>To: 'Lofton Henderson' <lofton@rockynet.com>, >> "Galt, Stuart A" <stuart.a.galt@boeing.com> >>Cc: "Cruikshank, David W" <david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com> >>Subject: RE: script types... >>Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:45:05 -0600 >>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) >>Mailarmory-Level: * >>Mailarmory-Category: clean (1) >>Mailarmory-Filter-Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:45:10 -0600 (MDT) >>Mailarmory-Details: >>UmFuZG9tSVYbSS8Uf8Lequ2gMJdov1B6fyqplElRsSl9q2vW2GIsjINlaa4kwxiUC4gUQDeJrigb62YK6WiKjg== >>X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com> >>X-SpamCatcher-Score: 1 >>X-SpamCatcher-IP: 127.0.0.1 >>X-SpamCatcher-1: a49dfe7e7fb53a086c93788b1811c2b4 >> >>Hi guys, >> >>Yes, I did look at this issue last summer and found that text/ecmascript was >>obsolete. I remember somebody at the time (probably Stuart) stating that >>"application/ecmascript" did not work in Internet Explorer, and I mentioned >>that at the last telecon. >> >>Last summer the RFC registering the text/ecmascript and >>application/ecmascript media types was not yet published (it was in the RFC >>Editor's queue). It is now published as RFC 4329 >>(ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc4329.txt). >> >>I did some further research today to try and determine exactly what is meant >>when a media type is labeled "OBSOLETE." The current media type >>registration procedure (RFC 4288) states, "Media type registrations may not >>be deleted; media types that are no longer believed appropriate for use can >>be declared OBSOLETE by a change to their "intended use" field; ...." >> >>So, text/ecmascript is a stillborn media type. RFC 4329 points out that in >>the past, ECMAScript and JavaScript have been exchanged with many >>unregistered media types. This is bad. Using text/ecmascript is better >>because it is registered, but not ideal. However, for the sake of backward >>compatibility with older applications, I think using a media type declared >>OBSOLETE is perfectly acceptable. >> >>Chapter 5 of the CS text uses text/ecmascript throughout except for the >>example in 5.7.5 (WebCGMPicture) which uses application/ecmascript. I >>think Lofton was testing examples before placing them in the text. Somehow, >>that one example slipped past the goalie. It will eventually work one of >>these days. Until then, I think an informative note somewhere describing >>the application/ecmascript versus text/ecmascript media type would be >>helpful. >> >>Stuart also asked a question about the <script language="JavaScript"> tag >>"that is all over the test suite." This is bad because the language >>attribute is deprecated in HTML. The type attribute is the correct >>attribute to use for specifying the scripting language in HTML. >> >>Regards, >> >>Rob >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com] >>Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:43 PM >>To: Galt, Stuart A >>Cc: Robert Orosz; Cruikshank, David W >>Subject: Re: script types... >> >> >>I'm copying Rob, as he had some definitive research... >> >>At 01:52 PM 5/18/2006 -0700, Galt, Stuart A wrote: >> >Hello, >> > >> >I must have not been paying attention when we made the decision on >> >what we wanted the scripts to be or at least the answer that I though >> >was correct does not seem to work with my browser. >> > >> >I thought that we wanted something of the form... >> ><script type="application/ecmascript"> >> >>I think Rob said that that was the preferred IANA mime type designation. >> >> >> >However this does not work with IE and he Itedo viewer (the only >> >one I have available). >> > >> ><script type="text/ecmascript"> >> > >> >does seem to work however. >> >>Someone mentioned: >> >>1.) text/emcascript is deprecated but allowed by IANA (probably because of >>next...) >>2.) IE doesn't handle application/ecmascript -- but no one seemed to have >>definitive proof. I guess you do now. >> >> >And I believe it is more correct than the >> > >> ><script language="JavaScript"> >> > >> >that is all over the test suite. >> >>Remembering that this stuff is supposed to be ECMAScript, then >>language="JavaScript" is probably invalid, right? (Or ... since this is on >>the HTML 'script' tag, it is at least undesirable, if not invalid.) >> >> >Unless I hear otherwise I think >> >that I will change the script to "text/ecmascript" as I edit/touch >> >them for other reasons. >> > >> >Comments? >> >>1.) ...after making sure that all changed tests still work, of course. >>2.) if you edit the tests, and replace them on FTP, then please send a >>message to cgmo-webcgm with a list of the files that you changed and the >>nature of the change. ("files", not "tests" -- you should only need to >>fuss with the HTML files for this fix, right?). >> >>Lacking CVS (and its auto-list-notify), #2 will help us preserve some >>sanity. >> >>-Lofton. > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]