[RESOLVED] type='text/javascript' or type='application/x-javascript'?

blackhorse

type='text/javascript' or type='application/x-javascript'?

They are the same, right?

But some scripts if I change the type='application/x-javascript' to type='text/javascript', I got javascript error message in the bottom bar of the internet explorer. But firefox is fine.

Thanks!

Weedpacket

The official designation is "application/javascript" (see the RFC referred to on that page for details).

blackhorse

I searched and got this answer

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=185201&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Actually, neither of them are 'official.' Just that 'application/x-javascript' is proper because the 'x-' explicity states that it <i>isn't</i> official.

So what should I use?

type='text/javascript', type='application/x-javascript' or type='application/javascript'?

Many javascript books use 'text/javascript' and I think 'text/javascript' is used in most cases. Even people claim that type='application/x-javascript' is more proper, they also said that due to 'text/javascript' and supported by most browsers, so 'text/javascript' should be used.

But I think most current versions browsers support type='application/x-javascript' now. I may use type='application/x-javascript' from now on, is it a right approach?

Weedpacket

Uh, "application/javascript" is official (as official as the Internet gets), as indicated by the site I linked to (and my information is more recent than yours so neener neener).

bradgrafelman

Section 3 of RFC 4329 pretty much spells it out:

Use of the "text" top-level type for this kind of content is known to
be problematic. This document thus defines text/javascript and text/
ecmascript but marks them as "obsolete". Use of experimental and
unregistered media types, as listed in part above, is discouraged.
The media types,
  * application/javascript
  * application/ecmascript
which are also defined in this document, are intended for common use
and should be used instead.