Re: [Json] Add Extension to JS MIME

["Matthew A. Miller" <[e-mail]>]

On 17/08/14 12:00, Bradley Meck wrote:
> Thanks, replies inline.
> 
> 
> 
>     Hello Bradley,
> 
>     I think the right approach here is create an internet-draft upating RFC
>     4329, adding .mjs as one of the extensions for "application/javascript".
>      That I-D would likely need to be [DISPATCH]ed, as there is no existing
>     WG  I can see that covers this.
> 
> 
> I have never made/updated an RFC. Is there a tutorial on how to do this.
> I don't know what I-D / [DISPATCH] means, it looks like a different WG?
> Do I send a new email to their mailing list?
>  
> 

This will be a lot to unpack, and I'm absolutely sure will require
follow up.  You can ping me off-list and I will attempt to do so.

I would start with Markdown, either <
https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629/ > or <
https://github.com/miekg/mmark >.  karmdown-rfc2629 has some decent
examples, and mmark has a doc describing its syntax.

There is an RFC that covers writing Internet-Drafts (from whence RFCs
come), which applies disirregardless of the source format: <
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322 >

More can be found here: < https://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html >


Regarding the terms I used:
* I-D ===> Internet Draft
* DISPATCH ==> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dispatch/about/ : A
working group for determining where ART work ought to be done
* ART ==> Applications in Real-Time : A grouping within the IETF
(https://www.ietf.org/iesg/area.html)

> 
>     For the document, at the very least it seems necessary to update the
>     ECMA-262 reference in addition to the updated IANA instructions.  I'm
>     not sure much of anything does need to be said about differences between
>     .mjs versus .js -- the content is still JavaScript, but hinting at
>     differences in module expectations.
> 
> 
> TC39 / ECMA262 has said that they are not in the business of the MIME
> in https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/322 . So there won't be any
> need to change references to that standard.
>  
> 

I understand that TC39 does not see this as their responsibility, and
that's fine; this work is not asking anything of TC39 itself.

I do strongly recommend pointing to an edition of ECMA-262 that
describes EcmaScript/Javacript modules (e.g., Sixth -- or 2015 --
Edition).  Or better yet, whatever Allen says (-:

> 
>     The IANA considerations section itself, I don't know what the right
>     wording is in this case.  I think almost everything stays the same,
>     other than the file extension(s), and the published specification?
> 
> 
> Yes, for the IANA, the only change is to add the file extension.
>  
> There could be a separate update since WHATWG treats text/javascript as
> the default as per
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/scripting.html#prepare-a-script /
> https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps/pull/61#issuecomment-321304962 .
> However, I think that is a separate change.
> 

In my opinion, if we're already opening this can o' worms for one, we
ought to consider all that are relevant.



- m&m

Matthew A. Miller