Bug 87527 - Increase the set of script @type values that we treat as JavaScript
: Increase the set of script @type values that we treat as JavaScript
Status: NEW
: WebKit
WebCore JavaScript
: 528+ (Nightly build)
: Unspecified Unspecified
: P2 Normal
Assigned To:
:
: EasyFix
:
:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-05-25 12:26 PST by
Modified: 2013-02-13 18:34 PST (History)


Attachments
Patch (8.94 KB, patch)
2012-06-11 17:52 PST, Pablo Flouret
darin: review+
webkit.review.bot: commit‑queue-
Review Patch | Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Archive of layout-test-results from ec2-cr-linux-02 (531.36 KB, application/zip)
2012-06-12 00:02 PST, WebKit Review Bot
no flags Details
Patch for landing (20.88 KB, patch)
2013-01-24 15:33 PST, Pablo Flouret
pf: commit‑queue?
Review Patch | Details | Formatted Diff | Diff


Note

You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


------- Comment #1 From 2012-05-25 18:26:21 PST -------
Do you intend to include "text/javascript;e4x=1", just to pick what seems like the most questionable item?
------- Comment #2 From 2012-05-25 19:05:35 PST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Do you intend to include "text/javascript;e4x=1", just to pick what seems like the most questionable item?

I'm not actually intending on working on this, but I think we should either implement what's in the spec, or get the spec changed. I can't be bothered to spend my time arguing for either.

In this specific case, the spec isolates this one as referring to "JavaScript with ECMAScript for XML", which is a language we don't support. But the rest refer to "JavaScript", which we do support. So, I think it'd be fine to leave this one out for WebKit without altering the spec.
------- Comment #3 From 2012-05-30 14:51:02 PST -------
> So, I think it'd be fine to leave this one out for WebKit without altering the spec.

Makes sense to me.

See also: bug 23097, where our list of supported languages is already seen as too large. I don't have an opinion here FWIW.
------- Comment #4 From 2012-06-11 17:52:57 PST -------
Created an attachment (id=146979) [details]
Patch
------- Comment #5 From 2012-06-12 00:02:07 PST -------
(From update of attachment 146979 [details])
Attachment 146979 [details] did not pass chromium-ews (chromium-xvfb):
Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/12809033

New failing tests:
fast/html/script-allowed-types-languages.html
------- Comment #6 From 2012-06-12 00:02:13 PST -------
Created an attachment (id=147025) [details]
Archive of layout-test-results from ec2-cr-linux-02

The attached test failures were seen while running run-webkit-tests on the chromium-ews.
Bot: ec2-cr-linux-02  Port: <class 'webkitpy.common.config.ports.ChromiumXVFBPort'>  Platform: Linux-2.6.35-28-virtual-x86_64-with-Ubuntu-10.10-maverick
------- Comment #7 From 2012-06-15 14:12:58 PST -------
Looks like this change should also be made in chrome's network stack.

http://code.google.com/searchframe#OAMlx_jo-ck/src/net/base/mime_util.cc&l=328
------- Comment #8 From 2013-01-17 00:46:27 PST -------
(From update of attachment 146979 [details])
Attachment 146979 [details] did not pass mac-wk2-ews (mac-wk2):
Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/15903868

New failing tests:
fast/tokenizer/004.html
------- Comment #9 From 2013-01-24 15:33:37 PST -------
Created an attachment (id=184596) [details]
Patch for landing
------- Comment #10 From 2013-01-24 15:34:41 PST -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created an attachment (id=184596) [details] [details]
> Patch for landing

Fixed the tokenizer test and added failing expectations for chromium.

Chromium bug: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=172076
------- Comment #11 From 2013-01-25 02:00:16 PST -------
(From update of attachment 184596 [details])
Attachment 184596 [details] did not pass chromium-ews (chromium-xvfb):
Output: http://queues.webkit.org/results/16112378

New failing tests:
svg/batik/text/textLayout2.svg
svg/batik/text/smallFonts.svg
------- Comment #12 From 2013-01-25 09:58:39 PST -------
(From update of attachment 184596 [details])
Test failures look unrelated.