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 <vinc...@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) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120828140524.gh19...@xvii.vinc17.org