[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: About the media types text/x-php and text/x-php-source

On 2012-08-28 15:53:51 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> 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.

It doesn't break anything. If the goal is to read the file as text,
then text/plain is fine.

> > > 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.

You misread what I've said. text/javascript and text/ecmascript
(which were used for execution -- this is what this RFC is about)
are obsolete, but not text/plain.

Sending a JavaScript file by e-mail with the text/plain type is fine.
text/x-javascript could be used to, in order to provide information
about the language, even though it is not standard (hence the "x-").

Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Reply to: