"Thomas DeWeese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jim Ley wrote: > > >"Vincent Hardy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >>The type should be "text/ecmascript" not "text/javascript". > >> > >> > >Since Batik has a JavaScript interpreter (not an ECMAScript one, although > >the non-compliances are minimal...) could it not also respond to a made up > >javascript mime-type just as it responds to a made up ECMAScript one. > > Sure but the SVG specification doesn't require it :)
Hmm, the problem with that is to get an SVG 1.1 compliant viewer, you're gonna need to fix bugs in Rhino which make it non-compliant to ECMAScript (since SVG requires that :-) and I think you'd be better placed getting the SVG stuff looking good :-) > I'm not sure why you would _want_ to introduce new 'equivilent' > script types. Well why not, it wouldn't be wrong, and then us users could use a mime-type that whilst equally as wrong as text/ecmascript at least has more support in the wild. You would also be consistent with inline and external scripts as I understand batik still processes external javascripts served as text/javascript. Jim. Jim. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
