[Bug 61383] New: *.mjs files should be part of mime application/javascript

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 61383] New: *.mjs files should be part of mime application/javascript

Bugzilla from bugzilla@apache.org
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383

            Bug ID: 61383
           Summary: *.mjs files should be part of mime
                    application/javascript
           Product: Apache httpd-2
           Version: 2.5-HEAD
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Mac OS X 10.1
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: mod_mime
          Assignee: [hidden email]
          Reporter: [hidden email]
  Target Milestone: ---

Javascript Language body is re-using the MIME for a new parse goal:
https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/issues/322

Used by Node:
https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps/blob/6cc060e94e56859bdb446a0820ef4704731ff0a8/002-es-modules.md
https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/14369

Already being merged into other tools:
https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/pull/25747

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 61383] *.mjs files should be part of mime application/javascript

Bugzilla from bugzilla@apache.org
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383

--- Comment #1 from Jacob Champion <[hidden email]> ---
Thanks for the heads up! Based on those links, I think this needs to be baked a
little bit more before we add it to the official mime.types. You've linked to a
draft proposal, and IMO it belongs in httpd after it's standardized and/or in
wide use.

In the meantime, server admins are welcome to adjust the mime.types themselves
if they need it, so we're not obstructing the rollout.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 61383] *.mjs files should be part of mime application/javascript

Bugzilla from bugzilla@apache.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@apache.org
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383

--- Comment #2 from Bradley Farias <[hidden email]> ---
What level of support are you needing. If I move the draft to accepted is that
enough? Is the merged PR for node needed if not? This issue is being brought up
because it was a web compatiblity concern where people cannot use the same
files due to lack of MIME support.

Would written statements from browser vendors sway anything?

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 61383] *.mjs files should be part of mime application/javascript

Bugzilla from bugzilla@apache.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@apache.org
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383

--- Comment #3 from Jacob Champion <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Bradley Farias from comment #2)
> What level of support are you needing. If I move the draft to accepted is
> that enough?
Now you have me worried/confused. Is that document you linked to binding in any
way on the Javascript community? Do you have the power to "accept" it yourself
-- and if so, should we use it as proof of standardization? ;D

My point is not that we should meet an arbitrary milestone that I'd be making
up on the spot, but that we should feel like the types we add are actually
standards (either de facto or otherwise). The stuff you've linked to highlights
relatively recent arguments over whether a new MIME suffix should be
registered, whether the extension should be .mjs or .jsm, etc.

IMO we should add this to httpd once the world says "yes, *this* is how it is."
Which does imply a slight bit of lag time.

> This issue is being
> brought up because it was a web compatiblity concern where people cannot use
> the same files due to lack of MIME support.
Right. Server admins have full power over their mime.types, and if they need
their servers to support this, they don't have to wait for us. We're not
blocking early adoption as far as I can tell.

> Would written statements from browser vendors sway anything?
Sure, it'd certainly give us a better idea of who intends to make use of this.

Keep in mind that I am not the sole gatekeeper for this. If, at any point, an
httpd dev is convinced, then in all likelihood it's going in. I'm just saying
that I'm not personally convinced *yet*.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[Bug 61383] *.mjs files should be part of mime application/javascript

Bugzilla from bugzilla@apache.org
In reply to this post by Bugzilla from bugzilla@apache.org
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61383

--- Comment #4 from Eric Covener <[hidden email]> ---
IIUC the bar for httpd to list a type is registration in IANA, but the bar for
adding an extension to an existing type is to show it in common use (assuming
it's not already in use elsewhere) or present in some standard.

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xml

Where we'd normally look to confirm an extension:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/application/javascript

I didn't find the specific references here too compelling but someone else
might be more familiar/comfortable with it.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Loading...