Add WebAssembly MIME type #95
Conversation
Intended to improve precision in: - https://webassembly.github.io/spec/web-api/index.html#compile-a-potential-webassembly-response - whatwg/html#4372
littledan
force-pushed
the
webassembly
branch
from
49d7364 to
e4f18f8
Compare
|
Do we think this is the right general practice going forward? I was kind of hoping that for non-complicated MIME types like wasm, people would just compare their essences inline. This doesn't feel like much of a group, compared to the existing ones which actually match more than one essence. (Except HTML MIME type, which I would support getting rid of.) |
|
I kinda like the prose this creates, though it might make sense for the format specifications to host the definitions themselves. I don't feel strongly though. |
|
I have absolutely no opinion here; I was just about to link to the definition of "essence" from HTML, saw that I'd have to create a new link, and cargo-culted the other MIME types. @domenic 's suggestion sounds good to me. I wanted to double-check: Should we be just matching against the essence application/wasm, or should we match exactly for that MIME type? I'm not sure if there's any other parameters that make sense to accept here. |
|
That's a good question. It seems like the practice so far is to ignore unknown parameters instead of disallowing them, except for the legacy-ish special-case of the type="" attribute on scripts. I'm not sure if that was a principled decision, though. |
|
Matching against the essence is what I recommend folks doing, mostly because this is what we do for every (wire) format, but also, it gives you two extension paths:
|
|
I see, thanks for explaining. I'll follow up with this being just improved use of the essence definition directly from my PR against HTML. |
Intended to improve precision in:
Preview | Diff