I propose to change the mapping of file extension .js to mime type "text/javascript" from "application/javascript.

"text/javascript" is the currently documented best practice in the whatwg HTML spec.

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/scripting.html#scriptingLanguages:javascript-mime-type

It should be noted that the HTML spec also says:

The term "JavaScript" is used to refer to ECMA-262, rather than the official term ECMAScript, since the term JavaScript is more widely known. Similarly, the MIME type used to refer to JavaScript in this specification is text/javascript, since that is the most commonly used type, despite it being an officially obsoleted type according to RFC 4329.

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dependencies:willful-violation

By RCF 4329 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4329#page-9 text/javascript is obsoleted, application/javascript is a part of the standard.

WhatWg is a controversial group. Their specs don't always follow official standards but Python does.

Sorry, I should decline the proposal.

Feel free to raise an issue again if IETF will change their opinion.

There is a IETF proposal that would make "text/javascript" no longer obsolete.

Will revisit at the point this lands

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs/

We can return to the question when (and if) the draft will be accepted.

Hey All,

I'd like to reopen this. We are almost done with the IETF standardization of .mjs, and part of this process is making obsolete application/javascript in favor of text/javascript.

--> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dispatch-javascript-mjs/

Myles, it looks like the draft 14 contains a mismatch in 6.2.1:

> # 6.2.1. text/ecmascript
>
> Type name: application
> Subtype name: ecmascript

In header it's `text`, in details it's `application`. Is it intended?

I believe that a typo wouldn't pass though fourteen revisions but nevertheless, just to be safe.