Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <3258609.Vzo5JXIDYN@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:36:35 +0200 User-Agent: KNode/4.10.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <2529079.e95EOKG17B@PointedEars.de> <5u0ms85crfigrnrh2qprofhj9k3h8f41gd@4ax.com> <51cb6ed8$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 74 NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Jun 2013 13:36:39 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 264219b7.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=SB<9[=mc;8l:i=48;n?Z:`4IUK Eric Bednarz wrote: >> Denis McMahon writes: >>> As long as the appropriate value for the type attribute >> >> The type attribute for the SCRIPT element type was introduced in HTML >> 4.0/4.01 (1998/1999). >> >>> of the html >>> script tag >> >> *ding* *ding* *ding* > > ACK. ACK :) >>> is "text/javascript" Ouch. >> "text/javascript" didn't mean anything before RFC 4329 (2006). Not entirely true: [I need to update that based on the Matrix's test framework.] >> See the problem with the timeline here? Apropos: (you might want to read the Changelog on this) [And no, I am _not_ advocating to say “ECMAScript + DOM2” *instead of* “javascript”. To assume that conveys a fundamental misunderstanding of the Matrix's introductory sections. I am advocating instead that you should use each of the *precise* terms (not only and not particularly those mentioned above) where they are *necessary* and *appropriate* (and only *those* *then*), to avoid misunderstandings and avoid creating misconceptions in beginners. “javascript” as an umbrella term for *everything* scripted is _not_ precise; it is ambiguous and misleading, and should therefore be avoided. For example, the Subject of this thread could have done well without any mention of “javascript”.] >> (From then on, it is "obsolete", not "appropriate".) > > Unfortunately RFC 4329 is in "Category: Informational" only. :| I do not think it would change anything if it were on the Standards Track because browser vendors do not forego year-long backwards compatibility just because someone suggests it to the IETF. See also: . Björn Höhrmann, author of that RFC, has pointed out to me in Usenet that there was no “deprecated” label available, so he had to choose “obsolete”. I still think it was a mistake to choose any label for it in the first place; it would have been better to suggest “*/javascript” for Mozilla JavaScript and recommend against it for code written for other implementations; perhaps */ecmascript or those that do not extend ECMAScript that much. But the RFC's “Introduction” also makes it clear to me that this is yet another example of “the world's most misunderstood programming language”, and we witness but the result of that. That said, in SVG you probably better use application/ecmascript. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.