Re: [dispatch] Fwd: WGLC: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-02.txt

[Bradley Meck <[e-mail]>]

I think reflecting reality is important, is the only concern the number of
types / review time? Should that be split into a separate RFC to add all
the obsolete types so that it can take more time to land all of those.
Regardless of intent, there MIMEs are in use and part of the web standards
used by browsers. Having them documented/registered seems important if the
MIME registry is intended to reflect actual usage.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:17 PM Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I was hoping to avoid stuffing the MIME registry with (and making everyone
> review) lots of useless obsolete templates; the use of OBSOLETE in
> “Intended use” should only be for previously registered types. Not new
> (dubious) registrations.
>
>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 7:25 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* DISPATCH <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [dispatch] Fwd: WGLC:
> draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-02.txt
>
>
>
> Per https://github.com/bmeck/I-D/issues/2
>
>
>
> The extra registrations are to match up with the Web specification on
> accepted MIME types for historical reasons
> https://mimesniff.spec.whatwg.org/#javascript-mime-type
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:15 AM Larry Masinter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> ➢ Only `text/javascript` is not obsolete per
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/scripting.html#scriptingLanguages
> <https://html.spec..whatwg.org/multipage/scripting.html#scriptingLanguages>
>
> I wonder about the utility of newly registering (or updating the
> registration) of types that are obsolete.
> If there’s significant deployment of names that new implementations need
> to be aware of, then ‘obsolete’ isn’t the right status; if not, then who
> would use the new, but obsolete, definition?
>
> Larry
> http://LarryMasinter.net
>
>
>
>