In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Phil Shaw wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >>For
> >>web content text/javascript is better because some browsers get confused
> >>and don't execute the script if they see application/x-javascript
> >
> > Do you recall the problem browsers?
>
> Internet Explorer 5.00.2614.3500 does not display the alert box with the
> following document, thus it does have problems with
> application/x-javascript (using text/javascript, it works):
> <script type="application/x-javascript">
> <!--
> alert("test");
> -->
> </script>
Yes, I can see that perhaps other browsers would have a problem with
this too. I thought the origin of the thread was about the HTTP header
for content type rather than the script type attribute. IE should be
pretty safe with application/x-javascript headers? IE generally
ignores content type headers in favour of interpreting "file"
extensions. I agree that text/javascript is more appropriate for the
type attribute.
--
Phil Shaw
<url:http://www.codestyle.org/>
