script type="?"
VK
...type="text/javascript;e4x=1"...
<http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/New_in_JavaScript_1.7#Using_JavaScript_1.7>
...type="application/javascript;version=1.7"...
Someone on the Mozilla side is getting lost in specs or it's just my
allusion?
Jeff Walden
You'll have to explain what your concern is, because I honestly have no idea. Is it the application vs. text thing, the parameters, a combination of the two, or what?
Jeff
VK
That is about the type randomly changing from one minor to another, so
it embraces all options you have spelled.
By going separately by each of them:
1) I do not understand why, despite Bjoern Hoerhrmann was "un-invited"
from W3C for a longest time already and despite his confusing RFC is
expired for a longest time also: why that "application/javascript"
still jumps out like a jack-from-the-box?
2) I do not understand the need to use Content-Type/MIME strings as a
variant of GET request with main part followed by parsed parameters for
it. While language name is just name and it can be anything, say
language="JavaScript1.7", Content-Type IMHO needs lesser creativity and
more of standard pattern. Maybe "text/javascript-x-e4x",
"text/javascript-x-7".
3) What is the currently suggested type for E4X scripts using
JavaScript 1.7 new features?
//////////////
4) That's not in your questions and semi-OT - but it is closely related
to the language versions so I'm adding it in here:
What are the relations (if any) between JavaScript 2.0 proposals
<http://www.mozilla.org/js/language/js20/> and the current team ideas?
If the roadmap is still in effect and the current 1.7 version is just
three minors away from it, that what are the relations I missed to see
between JavaScript 2.0 proposals and the recent extensions?
If JavaScript 2.0 project is put on hold, then is there some other
roadmap we could look at? I mean is there some (even the most basic)
plan for the JavaScript future in the Mozilla Foundation?
Thank you in advance.
Nickolay Ponomarev
> > > <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/E4X>
> > > ...type="text/javascript;e4x=1"...
> > >
> > > <http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/New_in_JavaScript_1.7#Using_JavaScript_1.7>
> > > ...type="application/javascript;version=1.7"...
> > >
> > > Someone on the Mozilla side is getting lost in specs or it's just my
> > > allusion?
>
> JavaScript 1.7 new features?
>
I think type="application/javascript;version=1.7" will enable e4x as
well.
> //////////////
>
> 4) That's not in your questions and semi-OT - but it is closely related
> to the language versions so I'm adding it in here:
>
> What are the relations (if any) between JavaScript 2.0 proposals
> <http://www.mozilla.org/js/language/js20/> and the current team ideas?
>
That proposal is old, the newer one can be found in an uber-secret
location - http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/
JS 1.7 implements some of the features described there.
> If the roadmap is still in effect and the current 1.7 version is just
> three minors away from it, that what are the relations I missed to see
> between JavaScript 2.0 proposals and the recent extensions?
>
I'd say, JS 1.7 is two minors away from JS 1.5, not three minors away
from 2.0 :)
> If JavaScript 2.0 project is put on hold, then is there some other
> roadmap we could look at? I mean is there some (even the most basic)
> plan for the JavaScript future in the Mozilla Foundation?
>
2.0 is not put on hold, Brendan periodically posts something about
this, so I suggest you look through the recent posts on
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/ (including comments) and maybe
look for the transcript of the recent JS chat.
I believe the time estimates for JS2 were mentioned somewhere, but I
don't remember where or what they are.
Nickolay
VK
> > <http://www.mozilla.org/js/language/js20/> and the current team ideas?
> >
> That proposal is old, the newer one can be found in an uber-secret
> location - http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/
I see... "When Waldemar away, the Mice will play..." :-) :-\
With Waldemar Horwat left the project I see the trend being switched
from a JScript.NET counterpart to a all separate pseudo-LISP
interpretation.
Whatever however, at least there is *some* plan as I can see; because
if 1.6 made me surprised - 1.7 made me worried as it looked just like
chaotic ext's made by Firefox shell developers (to make the shell
development more convenient). If I'm wrong then so it is better.
I still would insist to enforce on all JavaScript participants the same
script type. The standard de-facto "text/javascript" would be the best.
If there is some irresistibly appealing power in
"application/javascript" then we can manage to live with it too: as
long as there is something *single* everywhere throughout.