According to this page:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4101394/javascript-mime-type
and many others on the net, application/javascript is the correct answer, but
not accepted by MS IE ≤ 8. Which leaves us with text/javascript. But several
places (including the above) argues that leaving it empty is fine, and the most
compatible. I have no strong opinions, though, just that the present mime type
definitely is wrong :)
Sjur
Den 24. jan 2013 kl. 22:12 skrev Tim Williams:
> I'd say text/javascript or application/javascript is the right answer.
> Omitting it feels pretty wrong though.
>
> --tim
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Sjur Moshagen <sju...@mac.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In the file '$FORREST_HOME/main/webapp/resources.xmap' there's the following
>> match:
>>
>> <map:match pattern="**skin/**.js">
>> <map:read src="{lm:skin.js.{2}}" mime-type="application/x-javascript"
>> />
>> </map:match>
>>
>> x-javascript looks kind of strange and old. This is what wikipedia has to
>> say about javascript mime type
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_media_type):
>>
>> «• application/javascript: ECMAScript/JavaScript; Defined in RFC 4329
>> (equivalent to application/ecmascript but with looser processing rules) It
>> is not accepted in IE 8 or earlier - text/javascript is accepted but it is
>> defined as obsolete in RFC 4329. The "type" attribute of the <script> tag
>> inHTML5 is optional. In practice, ***omitting the media type of JavaScript
>> programs is the most interoperable solution,*** since all browsers have
>> always assumed the correct default even before HTML5.»
>>
>> (my emphasis)
>>
>> If there are no objections, I will just remove the mime type from that (and
>> similar) match(es).
>>
>> Sjur
>>
