Fwd: RE: script types...

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

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.