FB 3 identifies javascript differently

30 views
Skip to first unread message

Erik Krause

unread,
Jun 10, 2016, 3:17:37 PM6/10/16
to Firebug
Hello,

I found some discrepancy between FB 2 and FB 3 regarding filters in the
network panel.

If I select "Javascript" ("JS") in the toolbar of the network panel I
get 7 files with FB 2. With FB 3 it's only one, the others are under
"Other" and "HTML". Looking closer I saw that my server delivers JS
files as content type "text/plain" (and one as "text/html") while the JS
from browser-update.org is "application/x-javascript" (which would be
more correct I guess, but shouldn't it be "text/javascript").

You can see this behavior on http://www.leihinstrumente.de/

No idea whether this can be considered a bug...

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de

Sebastian Zartner

unread,
Jun 12, 2016, 11:53:21 AM6/12/16
to Firebug
On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 9:17:37 PM UTC+2, Erik Krause wrote:
Hello,

I found some discrepancy between FB 2 and FB 3 regarding filters in the
network panel.

If I select "Javascript" ("JS") in the toolbar of the network panel I
get 7 files with FB 2. With FB 3 it's only one, the others are under
"Other" and "HTML". Looking closer I saw that my server delivers JS
files as content type "text/plain" (and one as "text/html") while the JS
from browser-update.org is "application/x-javascript"

That is because Firebug 2 checked more than just the content type while the Firefox DevTools and by that Firebug 3 only checks the content type to categorize the responses.

(which would be more correct I guess, but shouldn't it be "text/javascript").

No, the standardized content type is application/javascript, see the article on maxcdn.

You can see this behavior on http://www.leihinstrumente.de/

No idea whether this can be considered a bug...

Hard to say whether that should be considered as a bug, though you can file a bug on Bugzilla to discuss that. If you do so, please backlink it here, so people reading this can follow it.

Sebastian

David Gomez

unread,
Jun 13, 2016, 8:15:51 AM6/13/16
to Firebug
Discussion about this issue with  Firebug 2: https://github.com/firebug/firebug/issues/6650
> Hard to say whether that should be considered as a bug
Before, everything was much simple

Sebastian Zartner

unread,
Jun 14, 2016, 8:38:30 AM6/14/16
to Firebug
But finding the files under a different filter is an indicator for the incorrect content type. So, it could be seen as a feature.
Anyway, it looks like Firebug is going away (it's turned into a skin for the Firefox DevTools). So, I took the time now to file it against the DevTools as bug 1280024.

Sebastian

Erik Krause

unread,
Jun 14, 2016, 12:06:00 PM6/14/16
to fir...@googlegroups.com
Am 14.06.2016 um 14:38 schrieb Sebastian Zartner:
> So, I took the time now to file it against the DevTools as bug 1280024
> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1280024>.

Many thanks!
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages