<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: JavaScript MIME Type: Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don&#8217;t!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:35:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/#comment-736166</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 18:54:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2480#comment-736166</guid>
		<description>yup it was deffintily microsoft whatever it was im sure they are to blame - it has to be thier fault - dam that bill</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yup it was deffintily microsoft whatever it was im sure they are to blame - it has to be thier fault - dam that bill</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/#comment-732033</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 16:58:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2480#comment-732033</guid>
		<description>Point one: Do you care about the document being valid, or passing a particular validation test?
If the validator picks up on something silly, that doesn't matter to anyone, then ignore it.

Secondly: for most standards bodies, there must be at least one complete implementation before a proposal can gain acceptance. Clearly here things are all backwards: everyone uses 'text/javascript' and no-one uses 'application/javascript' so it clearly isn't a proper standard, and should continue to be ignored.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Point one: Do you care about the document being valid, or passing a particular validation test?<br />
If the validator picks up on something silly, that doesn&#8217;t matter to anyone, then ignore it.</p>
<p>Secondly: for most standards bodies, there must be at least one complete implementation before a proposal can gain acceptance. Clearly here things are all backwards: everyone uses &#8216;text/javascript&#8217; and no-one uses &#8216;application/javascript&#8217; so it clearly isn&#8217;t a proper standard, and should continue to be ignored.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/#comment-725688</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 02:23:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2480#comment-725688</guid>
		<description>Validating either of those is a waste of time. Does it help users or customers in any way, shape, or form? No. All adding the type attribute does is add to download time. It should be left out for any and all Javascript.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Validating either of those is a waste of time. Does it help users or customers in any way, shape, or form? No. All adding the type attribute does is add to download time. It should be left out for any and all Javascript.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: plumsauce</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/#comment-723181</link>
		<dc:creator>plumsauce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:01:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2480#comment-723181</guid>
		<description>The problem with standards authors is that they never want to go with the status quo. After all, they would not then be bringing in anything new.

As mentioned previously, every major browser understands text/javascript. 

The fact that the standards authors don't like it is just too bad.

After all this is not only an IE thing.

It is a standards committee versus the real world thing.

Tail wagging the dog here.

Oh, and yes, scripts from Google and company are often horribly broken any ways, irrespective of the enclosing script tags.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with standards authors is that they never want to go with the status quo. After all, they would not then be bringing in anything new.</p>
<p>As mentioned previously, every major browser understands text/javascript. </p>
<p>The fact that the standards authors don&#8217;t like it is just too bad.</p>
<p>After all this is not only an IE thing.</p>
<p>It is a standards committee versus the real world thing.</p>
<p>Tail wagging the dog here.</p>
<p>Oh, and yes, scripts from Google and company are often horribly broken any ways, irrespective of the enclosing script tags.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/#comment-723180</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 23:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2480#comment-723180</guid>
		<description>The problem with standards authors is that they never want to go with the status quo. After all, they would not then be bringing in anything new.

As mentioned previously, every major browser understands text/javascript. 

The fact that the standards authors don't like it is just too bad.

After all this is not only an IE thing.

It is a standards committee versus the real world thing.

Tail wagging the dog here.

Oh, and yes, scripts from Google and company are often horribly broken any ways, irrespective of the enclosing script tags.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with standards authors is that they never want to go with the status quo. After all, they would not then be bringing in anything new.</p>
<p>As mentioned previously, every major browser understands text/javascript. </p>
<p>The fact that the standards authors don&#8217;t like it is just too bad.</p>
<p>After all this is not only an IE thing.</p>
<p>It is a standards committee versus the real world thing.</p>
<p>Tail wagging the dog here.</p>
<p>Oh, and yes, scripts from Google and company are often horribly broken any ways, irrespective of the enclosing script tags.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: logic_earth</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/#comment-722888</link>
		<dc:creator>logic_earth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 12:36:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2480#comment-722888</guid>
		<description>I say we just use text/javascript because really it just doesn't matter one bit. Every browser that has a small support for JavaScript understands text/javascript.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I say we just use text/javascript because really it just doesn&#8217;t matter one bit. Every browser that has a small support for JavaScript understands text/javascript.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pritambarhate</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/#comment-722687</link>
		<dc:creator>pritambarhate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 05:01:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2480#comment-722687</guid>
		<description>Why does Google ignore the standards?

One more interesting thing, In the article you said:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Google script Alex was embedding…
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I think here "Google script" is an important point. I have seen this time and again, scripts from Google are not confirming with the standards. If you will see HTML source for the home page of Google, it doesn’t even contain a DOCTYPE declaration. So this brings to the question:

Why does Google ignore the standards?

Generally you expect high quality work from Google. Or is it just high quality search results and sloppy code?

Pritam Barhate
------------------------------------
WebDesignStudent.net</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why does Google ignore the standards?</p>
<p>One more interesting thing, In the article you said:</p>
<blockquote><p>Google script Alex was embedding…
</p></blockquote>
<p>I think here &#8220;Google script&#8221; is an important point. I have seen this time and again, scripts from Google are not confirming with the standards. If you will see HTML source for the home page of Google, it doesn’t even contain a DOCTYPE declaration. So this brings to the question:</p>
<p>Why does Google ignore the standards?</p>
<p>Generally you expect high quality work from Google. Or is it just high quality search results and sloppy code?</p>
<p>Pritam Barhate<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
WebDesignStudent.net</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: XLCowBoy</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/#comment-721721</link>
		<dc:creator>XLCowBoy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 03:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2480#comment-721721</guid>
		<description>*scratches head*

So... why not use the correct type, and insert the IE one within conditional IE tags below it? (&#60;!--[if IE] etc. sort of stuff)

IE would then read the IE one, and the document would still validate, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*scratches head*</p>
<p>So&#8230; why not use the correct type, and insert the IE one within conditional IE tags below it? (&lt;!&#8211;[if IE] etc. sort of stuff)</p>
<p>IE would then read the IE one, and the document would still validate, right?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Johnson</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/#comment-721720</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 03:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2480#comment-721720</guid>
		<description>Situations like this make flash / flex appealing. It is not rocket science to read the W3C standards and build a browser to follow them. Almost every browser except IE has come close enough. Microsoft does a lot of these things purposely for reasons I will not get into.

Logic, are you really going to go to battle for Microsoft and it's capabilities to follow standards? If so you are a very brave man.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Situations like this make flash / flex appealing. It is not rocket science to read the W3C standards and build a browser to follow them. Almost every browser except IE has come close enough. Microsoft does a lot of these things purposely for reasons I will not get into.</p>
<p>Logic, are you really going to go to battle for Microsoft and it&#8217;s capabilities to follow standards? If so you are a very brave man.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheLunchBox</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/05/13/javascript-mime-type-damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont/#comment-721711</link>
		<dc:creator>TheLunchBox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 03:27:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2480#comment-721711</guid>
		<description>@logic_earth

Listen here logic, we're in the middle of a good old fasioned IE bashing session. Let's not go and end it just because IE didn't start the problem.

On a more serious note, I have to agree that this is an annoyance, but it's minor when compared to the other inconsistencies among browsers. Unfortunately, as the competition among browsers increases, vendors will be more likely to add features that may not be supported by other browsers in order to differentiate themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@logic_earth</p>
<p>Listen here logic, we&#8217;re in the middle of a good old fasioned IE bashing session. Let&#8217;s not go and end it just because IE didn&#8217;t start the problem.</p>
<p>On a more serious note, I have to agree that this is an annoyance, but it&#8217;s minor when compared to the other inconsistencies among browsers. Unfortunately, as the competition among browsers increases, vendors will be more likely to add features that may not be supported by other browsers in order to differentiate themselves.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
