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

Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> Thu, 19 July 2018 04:17 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6486130EEC; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ym3M_QScdEwF; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x530.google.com (mail-pg1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAC20130E6F; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x530.google.com with SMTP id r1-v6so2977070pgp.11; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=wdDbD990zSxIaJ5hsiJkTfNI5U2aQrnZEOZYz+YIwUI=; b=G/QBgWEsmokYJYNhGSSF+fTH5AUaz/6qtyg9Gr/cgoqCDF2sBeGO4EN1FvHCOAA76C FayaKEX4yXqyoMnJST5qJ/f4HjNtzaFh08+7GxrrOMjnqQGmzfrhTStZKxZhHPS+v9Op OwqYy7khFKNmKC8QypOph9WHKGiKGTHpqWWIa6dYnbJBPpe5jwWY5tiJIYj19bjNL4F7 MFRBHaeV5gcJNK9oa5+s26Or8BdH5n0B5I9aWvecvCYW6xJ1k4fOGcFKrt9gTMJcZIy5 JP5oTrJJU1Bc3OPkMLA3YKFl/Z37h0Yj5mkWOjt0cHLd7cpBz1bpZ/0ZLm0Kcvy5GjRV 9HRw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language; bh=wdDbD990zSxIaJ5hsiJkTfNI5U2aQrnZEOZYz+YIwUI=; b=hJhnJ2Yu6OrsYiioiiaRNnvVgLSH8MJgukOHxasZTL8Vx0mhXJ3h8p1xqhQSXgI7Ii S0fNbQ3RsabxEimA0eu7xCfEFpQyKuezmB4aD/rtp/H5aIDf+4VALz4zZlGeY2BSRjwp rQqaiy9cgN7IQs2sp8CUSz1tUjb5bAO2pIbTanasCfjchNXCRVXyNogdKKPZRl2C2EZm xetwb14rB8k6RScNNZMzieI1pjQC/zyljV5FplSCdxGZ+N8DYbGbSkvzAwmUoIoI+yv9 rebQyxi6PmqRR8YLHfI6KphCb6GJnNCD3MkKC5i2BNvM2H2nAdgIQWwi5yZIYD3fB6cK KSzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlG6UnvFFH/t6UIxfwxgf/VZZIMig91M65sn9zayvhkYNx2MMcJN 4L4o8br5MqBpoiGY1O2CzxI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcyTWSN02WJOqFKJjkLBPnrYraEmgEB1bptSzlHeL9SGvr4H8h5VKWCLtIIbLs0l4pGF3eOoQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4924:: with SMTP id w36-v6mr8457657pga.143.1531973842302; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TVPC (c-24-6-174-39.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.6.174.39]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z9-v6sm8034697pfi.150.2018.07.18.21.17.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Larry Masinter <masinter@gmail.com>
From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
X-Google-Original-From: "Larry Masinter" <lmm@acm.org>
To: "'Bradley Meck'" <bradley.meck@gmail.com>, <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: "'DISPATCH'" <dispatch@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs@ietf.org>
References: <CAHBDyN5kB=yi_eFty2hRO4LpadKrSSY0KY-BAS2447Y84pPoWg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXEbYtc7VKisvyTEAiTbteQPT=gXF9HY=VgeSrSCo7FCg@mail.gmail.com> <CANnEKUaUuRQ5NrLafcg_BtVKTdf+NNgDUEfn0h2oWh4R1F6+xw@mail.gmail.com> <CANnEKUbBY4XsFsR_-zP1v_PJnav6mhtFUBC5YOGt1OrzNNSzew@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWnhoW8Om9DKgiTXMcC466d9y_4zDy0newrb5LFWqO47Q@mail.gmail.com> <000001d41dd8$a2ad12e0$e80738a0$@acm.org> <CANnEKUZCyb29-_e-6FKrqM0vbJyiZkOSuFj_0GZAq5ve4H=wFg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANnEKUZCyb29-_e-6FKrqM0vbJyiZkOSuFj_0GZAq5ve4H=wFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:17:19 -0700
Message-ID: <00a501d41f17$63233e70$2969bb50$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A6_01D41EDC.B6C4DBA0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHUGjwIgZSPI+/PLkuVU40cEzx4fKSTcM7agAAOsgCAAADVUA==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/fiZ2Q3eu4sE0zuWiQ8bKE0F-p_g>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Fwd: WGLC: draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 04:17:25 -0000

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: LMM@acm.org
Cc: DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs@ietf.org
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 <LMM@acm.org <mailto:LMM@acm.org> > 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