Opened 7 years ago
Last modified 12 months ago
#1407 reopened enhancement
Should application/javascript be text/javascript in mime.types
Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | |
Component: | other | Version: | 1.13.x |
Keywords: | Cc: | ||
uname -a: | Linux ip | ||
nginx -V: | nginx version: nginx/1.12.1 |
Description
I think the 'content-type' header for js files should have media type 'text/javascript' (not 'application/javascript')
nginx version: nginx/1.12.1
Change History (6)
comment:1 by , 7 years ago
Resolution: | → invalid |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:2 by , 7 years ago
Why do you think so?
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-00#section-4.2
This document proposes updates to the ECMAScript media types,
superseding the existing registrations for "application/javascript"
and "text/javascript"
In particular see:
- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-00#section-4.2 (makes
application/javascript
"Intended usage: OBSOLETE") - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs-00#section-4.6 (makes
text/javascript
"Intended usage: COMMON")
And see also https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/scripting.html#scriptingLanguages:
Servers should use
text/javascript
for JavaScript resources. Servers should not use other JavaScript MIME types for JavaScript resources, and must not use non-JavaScript MIME types.
comment:3 by , 2 years ago
Resolution: | invalid |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
RFC 4329 has now been obsoleted by RFC 9239 which states in section 6.1.1 that application/javascript mime type has been deprecated and text/javascript should be used.
comment:4 by , 2 years ago
Type: | defect → enhancement |
---|
See also ticket #2216 and this thread:
https://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-devel/2022-May/7PN54GRH2S4ESBBTUTGZDXEKPEZGCWOJ.html
Some quotes from the thread:
As for the MIME type change from "application/javascript" to "text/javascript", this is something we'll consider as the outcome of the change suggested by the RFC becomes more clear. For now, it looks like this might need more compatibility shims (such as adding both "text/javascript" and "application/javascript" to the default list of types handled by the charset module) and more changes (such as change of the MIME type used by autoindex with JSONP format).
In this particular case, the RFC itself talks about "text/*" being an incorrect, and only used because "the industry widely adopted text/* anyway". On the other hand, httparchive.org data suggests that "application/javascript" is more popular now than "text/javascript": Query: SELECT mimeType, COUNT(distinct pageid) total_pages, COUNT(0) total_requests FROM `httparchive.summary_requests.2022_03_01_desktop` GROUP BY mimeType ORDER BY total_requests DESC Results: Row mimeType total_pages total_requests 1 application/javascript 5346744 95187099 2 image/jpeg 4608713 78732193 3 image/png 5129850 58321805 4 text/css 5546313 56797104 5 text/html 5718485 41375375 6 text/javascript 4670822 36042510 ... 11 application/json 3641048 16939555 12 application/x-javascript 2577400 14903323 ... From the rationale provided in the RFC it is not clear why "application/javascript", which is more popular, was dropped in favor of the "text/javascript", which is incorrect and less popular.
Overall, this is something to consider as the outcome of the change suggested by the RFC becomes more clear.
comment:5 by , 12 months ago
For the record: RFC 9204, "QPACK: Field Compression for HTTP/3", uses application/javascript
in static table.
comment:6 by , 12 months ago
For the record, HTTP Archive data as of httparchive.summary_requests.2023_10_01_desktop
, otherwise the same query:
Row mimeType total_pages total_requests 1 application/javascript 11846255 227387962 2 image/jpeg 9856195 147832918 3 text/css 12317159 139579364 4 image/png 11143451 116073400 5 6706412 101980466 6 text/html 12840076 98692496 7 image/gif 7628026 82149680 8 text/javascript 9366878 78538446 9 application/json 7757207 50520165 10 font/woff2 9110984 45917270
Does not look like there are major changes since comment:4.
Why do you think so?
According to RFC 4329 (April 2006):