On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 15:20 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Perhaps it would be more clear like that: one may want to consider > a script as a program/application that can be executed, in which > case application/* should be used; but one may also want to regard > it as text, in which case text/plain can be used. The IETF doesn't > forbid such a choice. Well but it doesn't endorse it either; at least I've never read anything like this. And actually, as said before, I think it "breaks" what MIME-types are defined as, which is a media type, but in _no way_ a hint which choice is to be selected, when multiple are available for it's interpretation. Of course we can technically do this, but this is then something which we purely make up in our minds and which is no where (again, none of the RFCs, etc. I'd know) defined like this. > > Just look at IETF's handling of ecmascript and javascript types, where > > text/* was deprecated. > They are deprecated *for execution*. If the user wants to distribute > the source, meant as visible as text, then text/plain and text/x-* > are fine. That's not true: RFC4329, section 7.1 and 8.1 mark text/javascript and text/ecmascript unconditionally as obsolete. Cheers, Chris.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature