24607 2014-02-10 20:11:00 +0000 <style type> should be ascii case-insensitive compare to "text/css". Similar to <script type>. http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/2803 2014-02-20 12:11:36 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED INVALID http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-style-element P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian ian mike zcorpan contributor oldest_to_newest 100193 0 contributor 2014-02-10 20:11:00 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/semantics.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#the-style-element Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#the-style-element Referrer: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ Comment: <style type> should be ascii case-insensitive compare to "text/css". Similar to <script type>. http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/2803 Posted from: 90.230.218.37 by simonp@opera.com User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_8) AppleWebKit/537.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/21.0.1180.90 Safari/537.1 100213 1 ian 2014-02-10 21:41:08 +0000 I don't mind changing how <style type=""> works, but before I do so, we should make sure we agree on what the spec says already... as far as I can tell, <script type=""> doesn't work as you describe, at least not per spec. It's not just a string comparison. In particular, the spec says to do space trimming for <script type="">, then to compare the relevant component (i.e. not the parameters) to the strings given in the "scripting languages" section. 100256 2 zcorpan 2014-02-11 09:56:05 +0000 Ah, yeah I forgot <script type> trimmed whitespace. I meant that <style type> should be like <script type>. 100320 3 ian 2014-02-11 19:52:06 +0000 So, as far as I can tell, the spec matches at least Firefox, and is already consistent between <style type> and <script type>. Can you elaborate on what exactly you want and why? 100512 4 zcorpan 2014-02-13 12:12:43 +0000 I want to avoid MIME type parsing of <style type> because that seems like unnecessary complexity that <script type> doesn't have. 100634 5 ian 2014-02-14 21:52:43 +0000 But <script type> does have it. 100952 6 zcorpan 2014-02-20 12:11:36 +0000 Hmm. So long as the UA doesn't support a language *with* parameters, there's no difference. But if it does you need the MIME type parser. OK.