[] (0) Define some types that are never going to be scripting types a…

…nd are therefore always going to be 'safe' to use as data format types in <script> (even though in practice authors really should be using more specific types). Fixing http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12592 git-svn-id: http://svn.whatwg.org/webapps@6212 340c8d12-0b0e-0410-8428-c7bf67bfef74
whatwg · Jun 10, 2011 · 7c8a2cc · 7c8a2cc
1 parent 7c1768d
commit 7c8a2cc
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 3 changed files with 67 additions and 0 deletions.
diff --git a/complete.html b/complete.html
@@ -16409,6 +16409,27 @@ <h5 id=scriptingLanguages><span class=secno>4.3.1.1 </span>Scripting languages</
   <p>User agents may support other <a href=#mime-type title="MIME type">MIME
   types</a> and other languages.</p>
 
+  <p>The following <a href=#mime-type title="MIME type">MIME types</a> must not
+  be interpreted as scripting languages:</p>
+
+  <ul class=brief><li>"<code>text/plain</code>"
+   <li>"<code>text/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>text/html</code>"-->
+   <li>"<code>application/octet-stream</code>"
+   <li>"<code>application/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>application/xhtml+xml</code>"-->
+   <!--<li>"<code>image/svg+xml</code>"-->
+
+   <!-- the commented-out ones aren't listed here because they
+   couldn't sanely be interpreted as a scripting language anyway:
+   they're defined to be something else. I just don't want this to
+   devolve into a list of every non-scripting type in existence. -->
+
+  </ul><p class=note>These types are explicitly listed here because they
+  are poorly-defined types that are nonetheless likely to be used as
+  formats for data blocks, and it would be problematic if they were
+  suddenly to be interpreted as script by a user agent.</p>
+
   <!-- this paragraph is also present in the <style> section -->
   <p>When examining types to determine if they support the language,
   user agents must not ignore unknown MIME parameters &mdash; types

diff --git a/index b/index
@@ -16399,6 +16399,27 @@ o............A....e
   <p>User agents may support other <a href=#mime-type title="MIME type">MIME
   types</a> and other languages.</p>
 
+  <p>The following <a href=#mime-type title="MIME type">MIME types</a> must not
+  be interpreted as scripting languages:</p>
+
+  <ul class=brief><li>"<code>text/plain</code>"
+   <li>"<code>text/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>text/html</code>"-->
+   <li>"<code>application/octet-stream</code>"
+   <li>"<code>application/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>application/xhtml+xml</code>"-->
+   <!--<li>"<code>image/svg+xml</code>"-->
+
+   <!-- the commented-out ones aren't listed here because they
+   couldn't sanely be interpreted as a scripting language anyway:
+   they're defined to be something else. I just don't want this to
+   devolve into a list of every non-scripting type in existence. -->
+
+  </ul><p class=note>These types are explicitly listed here because they
+  are poorly-defined types that are nonetheless likely to be used as
+  formats for data blocks, and it would be problematic if they were
+  suddenly to be interpreted as script by a user agent.</p>
+
   <!-- this paragraph is also present in the <style> section -->
   <p>When examining types to determine if they support the language,
   user agents must not ignore unknown MIME parameters &mdash; types

diff --git a/source b/source
@@ -17691,6 +17691,31 @@ o............A....e
   <p>User agents may support other <span title="MIME type">MIME
   types</span> and other languages.</p>
 
+  <p>The following <span title="MIME type">MIME types</span> must not
+  be interpreted as scripting languages:</p>
+
+  <ul class="brief">
+
+   <li>"<code>text/plain</code>"
+   <li>"<code>text/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>text/html</code>"-->
+   <li>"<code>application/octet-stream</code>"
+   <li>"<code>application/xml</code>"
+   <!--<li>"<code>application/xhtml+xml</code>"-->
+   <!--<li>"<code>image/svg+xml</code>"-->
+
+   <!-- the commented-out ones aren't listed here because they
+   couldn't sanely be interpreted as a scripting language anyway:
+   they're defined to be something else. I just don't want this to
+   devolve into a list of every non-scripting type in existence. -->
+
+  </ul>
+
+  <p class="note">These types are explicitly listed here because they
+  are poorly-defined types that are nonetheless likely to be used as
+  formats for data blocks, and it would be problematic if they were
+  suddenly to be interpreted as script by a user agent.</p>
+
   <!-- this paragraph is also present in the <style> section -->
   <p>When examining types to determine if they support the language,
   user agents must not ignore unknown MIME parameters &mdash; types