问题描述

这些标头有什么区别?

Content-Type: application/javascript
Content-Type: application/x-javascript
Content-Type: text/javascript

哪个最好，为什么?

请不要说它们是相同的 - 如果它们相同，就不会有三个.我知道两者都有效 - 但我想知道它们的区别.

Please do not say they are identical - if they were identical there would not have been three of them. I know both work - but I would like to know the difference.

推荐答案

text/javascript 已过时，application/x-javascript 是实验性的(因此 >x- 前缀)在 application/javascript 可以标准化之前的过渡期.

text/javascript is obsolete, and application/x-javascript was experimental (hence the x- prefix) for a transitional period until application/javascript could be standardised.

您应该使用 application/javascript.这在 RFC.

就浏览器而言，没有区别(至少在 HTTP 标头中).这只是一个更改，以便 text/* 和 application/* MIME 类型组在可能的情况下具有一致的含义.(text/* MIME 类型旨在用于人类可读的内容，JavaScript 并非旨在直接向人类传达意义).

As far a browsers are concerned, there is no difference (at least in HTTP headers). This was just a change so that the text/* and application/* MIME type groups had a consistent meaning where possible. (text/* MIME types are intended for human readable content, JavaScript is not designed to directly convey meaning to humans).

请注意，在脚本元素的 type 属性中使用 application/javascript 会导致脚本在某些较旧的浏览器中被忽略(因为是未知语言).要么继续使用 text/javascript ，要么完全省略该属性(这在 HTML 5 中是允许的).

Note that using application/javascript in the type attribute of a script element will cause the script to be ignored (as being in an unknown language) in some older browsers. Either continue to use text/javascript there or omit the attribute entirely (which is permitted in HTML 5).

这在 HTTP 标头中不是问题，因为浏览器普遍(据我所知)要么完全忽略脚本的 HTTP 内容类型，要么足够现代以识别 application/javascript.

This isn't a problem in HTTP headers as browsers universally (as far as I'm aware) either ignore the HTTP content-type of scripts entirely, or are modern enough to recognise application/javascript.

这篇关于application/x-javascript 和 text/javascript 内容类型之间的区别的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持跟版网！