|
|
Posted by Michael Winter on 06/30/05 05:06
On 30/06/2005 02:51, Ian Rastall wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 01:35:01 GMT, Michael Winter
> <m.winter@blueyonder.co.invalid> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't really make a difference either way. Using a type other
>> than text/javascript is likely to leave a script unexecuted
>
> That's my take on the issue ... unless we're discussing what should
> be, rather than what is.
I'm usually partial to those debates :D, but I suppose the only details
I'm interested in here is why didn't this occur sooner.
> Granted, I've never tried using text/js.
I did. After all the text doesn't need to be extensive: a browser will
either do something or it won't, and neither Firefox nor IE did.
> Perhaps the browser would just default to JavaScript, since that's
> likely what it'll do without a MIME type of any kind.
That couldn't be allowed, though. There's no rule saying that
ECMAScript-derivatives are the only scripting languages permissible on
the Web. After all, IE also implements VBScript. So, to simply ignore
the type attribute when specified could result in attempts to execute a
script that truly isn't understood.
Mike
--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|