Mailing list search service

1. Re: checklink: runtime error (score: 31) (2,914 bytes)
Author: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>, Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:07:49 +0300 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <000001c44f2c$a3eead60$43d32f3e@n4n8u9> References: 1

Okay, given the following, in no particular order: - It can be argued that using the "private" application/x-javascript is not much "better" than using the unregistered text/javascript. - The Markup

2. Re: checklink: (score: 11) (2,936 bytes)
Author: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>, Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 21:38:34 +0300 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <200405101459.KAA24843@hub.hodain.net> References: 1

[...] I can reproduce this with Opera 7.23 on Linux. I would blame Opera, because that version does not seem to support <script type="application/x-javascript">, but it does not honor Content-Script-

3. Re: Problem Validating SCRIPT Element with TYPE Attribute (score: 21) (3,602 bytes)
Author: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>, Date: 23 Jun 2003 18:17:14 +0300 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <bd73gu$le2$1@main.gmane.org> References: 1 2 3 4

Because I wasn't aware of the above interpretation of text/javascript, and I'm still not quite sure what it means. It sure does sound more like "JavaScript" than "all ECMAScript compliant languages"

4. Re: Problem Validating SCRIPT Element with TYPE Attribute (score: 21) (4,001 bytes)
Author: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>, Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:46:19 +0000 List: Public/www-validator References: 1 2 3 4

JavaScript, the honour Why? This wasn't invented for the development of JavaScript, but is generally used as a generic marker for all ECMAScript compliant languages, indeed javascript is a very deval

5. Re: Problem Validating SCRIPT Element with TYPE Attribute (score: 21) (4,173 bytes)
Author: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>, Date: 23 Jun 2003 13:50:50 +0300 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <00d201c338c9$a7560400$c89ffea9@Snork> References: 1 2 3 4

I would agree with you if they had treated text/javascript the same way. AFAICT, that's still used to label JavaScript, not JScript or ECMAScript. This discussion has popped up every now and then. Th

6. Re: Problem Validating SCRIPT Element with TYPE Attribute (score: 21) (3,206 bytes)
Author: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>, Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:27:36 +0000 List: Public/www-validator References: 1 2 3

I believe that MSIE is correct here, the application/x-javascript is an experimental mime-type invented by the Netscape people to label JavaScript, and since MSIE does not support JavaScript (which h

7. [ANN] 0.6.2 Beta #1 of the W3C Markup Validator (score: 11) (29,093 bytes)
Author: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>, Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 15:44:41 +0200 List: Public/www-validator

Ok, 5 months after the first planned release date and 3 weeks after the second planned release date -- are we detecting a pattern here? :-) -- the first beta release of version 0.6.2 of the W3C Marku

8. Re: W3C Link Checker uses unregistered media type (score: 21) (2,454 bytes)
Author: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>, Date: 01 Feb 2003 12:57:55 +0200 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <3e44aec2.176210477@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> References: 1 2

Yes, you're right. However, changing that would cause MSIE, versions 6+ IIRC, not to execute the script (neat, huh?). The script has no critical role at all, not to mention we really shouldn't have b

9. Re: W3C Link Checker uses unregistered media type (score: 11) (1,607 bytes)
Author: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:23:02 +0100 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <1044025337.23886.4.camel@lucy.nnet> References: 1

Which is neither registered?!

10. Re: JavaScript messes up validator (score: 11) (8,417 bytes)
Author: Brant Langer Gurganus <brantgurganus2001@cherokeescouting.org>, Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2003 23:40:09 -0500 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <3E17B21F.7030601@accettura.com> References: 1

Do you know the language tag is deprecated. Also, the appropriate MIME type is application/x-javascript since text/javascript is not a registered type. I don't see why you need this stuff in JavaScri

11. Re: application/x-javascript in MSIE6 (score: 174) (1,947 bytes)
Author: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>, Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:43:12 +0000 List: Public/www-validator References: 1

I don't think it's a bug for MS not to support that mime-type, they don't support javascript, they have their own ECMAScript implementation called JScript. It's an x- it shouldn't be used, and if it

12. application/x-javascript in MSIE6 (score: 174) (1,424 bytes)
Author: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>, Date: 19 Jun 2002 23:37:40 +0300 List: Public/www-validator

There was some discussion about the correct content type for Javascript on the list a while ago; to add to that, I just noticed that MSIE 6.0 on Win2K (probably others Windowses too) doesn't support

13. Re: Scripts... (score: 11) (2,782 bytes)
Author: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>, Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 12:37:31 +0100 (BST) List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <vhmpdusk0h1rc0hn2eas0rc52375d403f8@4ax.com>

Such an agreement is perfectly compatible with use of unregistered media types. All that means is that a particular resource is of no interest to a Client that doesn't understand a particular type. F

14. Re: Scripts... (score: 21) (2,752 bytes)
Author: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>, Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 12:15:44 +0100 List: Public/www-validator References: 1

[2]. Well there's a simple practical level that application/x-javascript simply doesn't work in many UA's (it's okay as the mime-type for resource as it's ignored anyway by those that ignore it.) I a

15. Re: Scripts... (score: 11) (1,982 bytes)
Author: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 10:48:13 +0200 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <20020511072640.L595-100000@fenris.webthing.com> References: 1 2

Yes, private media types are for use between two parties, but publishing on the WWW implies an agreement between you and the rest of the world.

16. Re: Scripts... (score: 11) (2,299 bytes)
Author: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>, Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 07:30:46 +0100 (BST) List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <k2roducgdknthif4daqfe6oalqib90sk17@4ax.com>

On the contrary, that's exactly what "x-[anything]" media types are for: a type known to one or more Client or Server, but not registered. And it's not *very* offtopic either: if, for instance, we we

17. Re: Scripts... (score: 11) (3,057 bytes)
Author: Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@optimalco.com>, Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:50:34 -0700 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <1021064799.2132.169.camel@bobcat.ods.org> References: 1 2

scripsit Ville Skyttä: \begin{kvetch} How come no one's ever registered a MIME type for JavaScript? \end{kvetch} Ville has a very good point here. I have to admit I've been blindly following the HTML

18. Re: Scripts... (score: 11) (1,635 bytes)
Author: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 02:57:58 +0200 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <1021064799.2132.169.camel@bobcat.ods.org> References: 1 2

Using private media types in a public envoirement is worse to me than using a not-yet registered type. But this is offtopic here...

19. RE: Scripts... (score: 11) (4,959 bytes)
Author: "Evelyn Hunter" <boots@aloha.net>, Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:40:28 -1000 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <1021064799.2132.169.camel@bobcat.ods.org>

Thank you both so much! You guys are great and so fast too! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Restore Your Sanity... In Virtually No Time! Evie Lu, Virtual Assistant http://planet-hawaii.com/hbb/VA.html

20. Re: Scripts... (score: 11) (2,025 bytes)
Author: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>, Date: 11 May 2002 00:06:39 +0300 List: Public/www-validator
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0205101646530.2727-100000@localhost.localdomain> References: 1

Maybe a nitpick thingy, but I'd rather not recommend using "text/javascript" since it is not officially registered in IANA [1]. "application/x-javascript" would IMHO be a better, more established cho