https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383
--- Comment #3 from Jacob Champion <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Bradley Farias from comment #2) > What level of support are you needing. If I move the draft to accepted is > that enough? Now you have me worried/confused. Is that document you linked to binding in any way on the Javascript community? Do you have the power to "accept" it yourself -- and if so, should we use it as proof of standardization? ;D My point is not that we should meet an arbitrary milestone that I'd be making up on the spot, but that we should feel like the types we add are actually standards (either de facto or otherwise). The stuff you've linked to highlights relatively recent arguments over whether a new MIME suffix should be registered, whether the extension should be .mjs or .jsm, etc. IMO we should add this to httpd once the world says "yes, *this* is how it is." Which does imply a slight bit of lag time. > This issue is being > brought up because it was a web compatiblity concern where people cannot use > the same files due to lack of MIME support. Right. Server admins have full power over their mime.types, and if they need their servers to support this, they don't have to wait for us. We're not blocking early adoption as far as I can tell. > Would written statements from browser vendors sway anything? Sure, it'd certainly give us a better idea of who intends to make use of this. Keep in mind that I am not the sole gatekeeper for this. If, at any point, an httpd dev is convinced, then in all likelihood it's going in. I'm just saying that I'm not personally convinced *yet*. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
