Scripting Media Types

[ned.freed at mrochek.com]

> On Sun February 13 2005 14:10, ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote:

> > You have previously claimed that people will only look at the list of
> > registrations and not bother to look at the actual registrations. By this logic
> > a discussion of unregistered types buried in the text for some other type isn't
> > going to be seen.

> Yes.
 
> > You can't have it both ways. And please don't bother claiming that
> > the lack of a registration for these text types will serve as a warning
> > not to use them

> By itself, it won't serve as a warning.  The problem is that there
> is no visible, clear place to provide a warning.

Then let's fix that problem independently of doing the right thing
for these media types.

> If somebody
> (typically a developer) is looking for an appropriate type and sees
> application/ecmascript and application/javascript, he is likely to
> use one of those.  If text/javascript etc. are also registered and
> he sees one of those first, that's what he's likely to use.  The
> latter is what we would like to avoid.

I still don't buy the argument, but even if I did the right thing to do
is to address the clarity problem, not fall down in providing useful
advice.

				Ned