Skip to main content

Updates to ECMAScript Media Types
RFC 9239

Document Type RFC - Informational (May 2022)
Obsoletes RFC 4329
Authors Matthew A. Miller , Myles Borins , Mathias Bynens , Bradley Farias
Last updated 2022-05-06
Replaces draft-bfarias-javascript-mjs
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
OPSDIR Last Call Review Incomplete, due 2021-11-15
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Ben Campbell
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2021-07-01
IESG IESG state RFC 9239 (Informational)
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Francesca Palombini
Send notices to Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
RFC 9239


Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         M. Miller
Request for Comments: 9239                                              
Obsoletes: 4329                                                M. Borins
Category: Informational                                           GitHub
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                M. Bynens
                                                                  Google
                                                               B. Farias
                                                                May 2022

                   Updates to ECMAScript Media Types

Abstract

   This document describes the registration of media types for the
   ECMAScript and JavaScript programming languages and conformance
   requirements for implementations of these types.  This document
   obsoletes RFC 4329 ("Scripting Media Types)", replacing the previous
   registrations with information and requirements aligned with common
   usage and implementation experiences.

IESG Note

   This document records the relationship between the work of Ecma
   International's Technical Committee 39 and the media types used to
   identify relevant payloads.

   That relationship was developed outside of the IETF and as a result
   is unfortunately not aligned with the best practices of BCP 13.
   Consequently, consensus exists in the IETF to document the
   relationship and update the relevant IANA registrations for those
   media types, but this is not an IETF endorsement of the media types
   chosen for this work.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9239.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
     1.1.  Terminology
   2.  Compatibility
   3.  Modules
   4.  Encoding
     4.1.  Charset Parameter
     4.2.  Character Encoding Scheme Detection
     4.3.  Character Encoding Scheme Error Handling
   5.  Security Considerations
   6.  IANA Considerations
     6.1.  Common JavaScript Media Types
       6.1.1.  text/javascript
     6.2.  Historic JavaScript Media Types
       6.2.1.  text/ecmascript
   7.  References
     7.1.  Normative References
     7.2.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Changes from RFC 4329
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   This memo describes media types for the JavaScript and ECMAScript
   programming languages.  Refer to the sections "Introduction" and
   "Overview" in [ECMA-262] for background information on these
   languages.  This document updates the descriptions and registrations
   for these media types to reflect existing usage on the Internet, and
   it provides up-to-date security considerations.

   This document replaces the media type registrations in [RFC4329] and
   updates the requirements for implementations using those media types
   defined in [RFC4329] based on current existing practices.  As a
   consequence, this document obsoletes [RFC4329].

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  Compatibility

   This document defines equivalent processing requirements for the
   various script media types.  The most widely supported media type in
   use is text/javascript; all others are considered historical and
   obsolete aliases of text/javascript.

   The types defined in this document are applicable to scripts written
   in [ECMA-262].  New editions of [ECMA-262] are subjected to strong
   obligations of backward compatibility, imposed by the standardization
   process of Ecma International's Technical Committee 39 (TC39).  As a
   result, JavaScript code based on an earlier edition is generally
   compatible with a JavaScript engine adhering to a later edition.  The
   few exceptions to this are documented in [ECMA-262] in the section
   "Additions and Changes That Introduce Incompatibilities with Prior
   Editions".  JavaScript developers commonly use feature detection to
   ensure that modern JavaScript features are only used when available
   in the current environment.  Later editions of [ECMA-262] are not
   directly addressed in this document, although it is expected that
   implementations will behave as if applicability were extended to
   them.  This document does not address other extensions to [ECMA-262]
   or scripts written in other languages.

   This document may be updated to take other content into account.
   Updates of this document may introduce new optional parameters;
   implementations must consider the impact of such an update.

   This document does not define how fragment identifiers in resource
   identifiers [RFC3986] [RFC3987] for documents labeled with one of the
   media types defined in this document are resolved.  An update of this
   document may define processing of fragment identifiers.

   Note that this use of the "text" media type tree willfully does not
   align with its original intent per [RFC2045].  The reason for this is
   historical.  [RFC4329] registered both the text/* and application/*
   types, marking the text/* types obsolete.  This was done to encourage
   people toward application/*, matching the guidance in [RFC4288], the
   predecessor to [RFC6838].  Since then, however, the industry widely
   adopted text/* anyway.  The definitions in this document reflect the
   current state of implementation across the JavaScript ecosystem, in
   web browsers and other environments such as Node.js alike, in order
   to guarantee backward compatibility with existing applications as
   much as possible.  Future registrations should not view this as a
   repeatable precedent.

3.  Modules

   In order to formalize support for modular programs, [ECMA-262]
   (starting with the 6th Edition) defines two top-level goal symbols
   (or roots to the abstract syntax tree) for the ECMAScript grammar:
   Module and Script.  The Script goal represents the original structure
   where the code executes in the global scope, while the Module goal
   represents the module system built into ECMAScript starting with the
   6th Edition.  See the section "ECMAScript Language: Scripts and
   Modules" in [ECMA-262] for details.

   This separation means that (in the absence of additional information)
   there are two possible interpretations for any given ECMAScript
   source text.

   Ecma International's Technical Committee 39 (TC39), the standards
   body in charge of ECMAScript, has determined that media types are
   outside of their scope of work [TC39-MIME-ISSUE].

   It is not possible to fully determine if a source text of ECMAScript
   is meant to be parsed using the Module or Script grammar goals based
   upon content or media type alone.  Therefore, as permitted by the
   media types in this document, scripting environments use out-of-band
   information in order to determine what goal should be used.  Some
   scripting environments have chosen to adopt the file extension of
   .mjs for this purpose.

4.  Encoding

   Refer to [RFC6365] for a discussion of terminology used in this
   section.  Source text (as defined in the section "Source Text" in
   [ECMA-262]) can be binary source text.  Binary source text is a
   textual data object that represents source text encoded using a
   character encoding scheme.  A textual data object is a whole text
   protocol message or a whole text document, or a part of it, that is
   treated separately for purposes of external storage and retrieval.
   An implementation's internal representation of source text is not
   considered binary source text.

   Implementations need to determine a character encoding scheme in
   order to decode binary source text to source text.  The media types
   defined in this document allow an optional charset parameter to
   explicitly specify the character encoding scheme used to encode the
   source text.

   In order to ensure interoperability and align with widespread
   implementation practices, the charset parameter is optional rather
   than required, despite the recommendation in BCP 13 [RFC6838] for
   text/* types.

   How implementations determine the character encoding scheme can be
   subject to processing rules that are out of the scope of this
   document.  For example, transport protocols can require that a
   specific character encoding scheme is to be assumed if the optional
   charset parameter is not specified, or they can require that the
   charset parameter is used in certain cases.  Such requirements are
   not defined by this document.

   Implementations that support binary source text MUST support binary
   source text encoded using the UTF-8 [RFC3629] character encoding
   scheme.  Module goal sources MUST be encoded as UTF-8; all other
   encodings will fail.  Source goal sources SHOULD be encoded as UTF-8;
   other character encoding schemes MAY be supported but are
   discouraged.  Whether U+FEFF is processed as a Byte Order Mark (BOM)
   signature or not depends on the host environment and is not defined
   by this document.

4.1.  Charset Parameter

   The charset parameter provides a means to specify the character
   encoding scheme of binary source text.  If present, the value of the
   charset parameter MUST be a registered charset [CHARSETS] and is
   considered valid if it matches the mime-charset production defined in
   Section 2.3 of [RFC2978].

   The charset parameter is only used when processing a Script goal
   source; Module goal sources MUST always be processed as UTF-8.

4.2.  Character Encoding Scheme Detection

   It is possible that implementations cannot interoperably determine a
   single character encoding scheme simply by complying with all
   requirements of the applicable specifications.  To foster
   interoperability in such cases, the following algorithm is defined.
   Implementations apply this algorithm until a single character
   encoding scheme is determined.

   1.  If the binary source text is not already determined to be using a
       Module goal and starts with a Unicode encoding form signature,
       the signature determines the encoding.  The following octet
       sequences, at the very beginning of the binary source text, are
       considered with their corresponding character encoding schemes:

       +==================+==========+
       | Leading sequence | Encoding |
       +==================+==========+
       | EF BB BF         | UTF-8    |
       +------------------+----------+
       | FF FE            | UTF-16LE |
       +------------------+----------+
       | FE FF            | UTF-16BE |
       +------------------+----------+

                   Table 1

       Implementations of this step MUST use these octet sequences to
       determine the character encoding scheme, even if the determined
       scheme is not supported.  If this step determines the character
       encoding scheme, the octet sequence representing the Unicode
       encoding form signature MUST be ignored when decoding the binary
       source text.

   2.  Else, if a charset parameter is specified and its value is valid
       and supported by the implementation, the value determines the
       character encoding scheme.

   3.  Else, the character encoding scheme is assumed to be UTF-8.

   If the character encoding scheme is determined to be UTF-8 through
   any means other than step 1 as defined above and the binary source
   text starts with the octet sequence EF BB BF, the octet sequence is
   ignored when decoding the binary source text.

4.3.  Character Encoding Scheme Error Handling

   Binary source text that is not properly encoded for the determined
   character encoding can pose a security risk, as discussed in
   Section 5.  That said, because of the varied and complex environments
   scripts are executed in, most of the error handling specifics are
   left to the processors.  The following are broad guidelines that
   processors follow.

   If binary source text is determined to have been encoded using a
   certain character encoding scheme that the implementation is unable
   to process, implementations can consider the resource unsupported
   (i.e., do not decode the binary source text using a different
   character encoding scheme).

   Binary source text can be determined to have been encoded using a
   certain character encoding scheme but contain octet sequences that
   are not valid according to that scheme.  Implementations can
   substitute those invalid sequences with the replacement character
   U+FFFD (properly encoded for the scheme) or stop processing
   altogether.

5.  Security Considerations

   Refer to [RFC3552] for a discussion of terminology used in this
   section.  Examples in this section and discussions of interactions of
   host environments with scripts, modules, and extensions to [ECMA-262]
   are to be understood as non-exhaustive and of a purely illustrative
   nature.

   The programming language defined in [ECMA-262] is not intended to be
   computationally self-sufficient; rather, it is expected that the
   computational environment provides facilities to programs to enable
   specific functionality.  Such facilities constitute unknown factors
   and are thus not defined by this document.

   Derived programming languages are permitted to include additional
   functionality that is not described in [ECMA-262]; such functionality
   constitutes an unknown factor and is thus not defined by this
   document.  In particular, extensions to [ECMA-262] defined for the
   JavaScript programming language are not discussed in this document.

   Uncontrolled execution of scripts can be exceedingly dangerous.
   Implementations that execute scripts MUST give consideration to their
   application's threat models and those of the individual features they
   implement; in particular, they MUST ensure that untrusted content is
   not executed in an unprotected environment.

   Module scripts in ECMAScript can request the fetching and processing
   of additional scripts; this is called "importing".  Implementations
   that support modules need to process imported sources in the same way
   as scripts.  See the section "ECMAScript Language: Scripts and
   Modules" in [ECMA-262] for details.  Further, there may be additional
   privacy and security concerns, depending on the location(s) the
   original script and its imported modules are obtained from.  For
   instance, a script obtained from "host-a.example" could request to
   import a script from "host-b.example", which could expose information
   about the executing environment (e.g., IP address) to "host-
   b.example".

   Specifications for host environment facilities and for derived
   programming languages should include security considerations.  If an
   implementation supports such facilities, the respective security
   considerations apply.  In particular, if scripts can be referenced
   from or included in specific document formats, the considerations for
   the embedding or referencing document format apply.

   For example, scripts embedded in application/xhtml+xml [RFC3236]
   documents could be enabled through the host environment to manipulate
   the document instance, which could cause the retrieval of remote
   resources; security considerations regarding retrieval of remote
   resources of the embedding document would apply in this case.

   This circumstance can further be used to make information that is
   normally only available to the script also available to a web server
   by encoding the information in the resource identifier of the
   resource, which can further enable eavesdropping attacks.
   Implementation of such facilities is subject to the security
   considerations of the host environment, as discussed above.

   The programming language defined in [ECMA-262] does include
   facilities to loop, cause computationally complex operations, or
   consume large amounts of memory; this includes, but is not limited
   to, facilities that allow dynamically generated source text to be
   executed (e.g., the eval() function); uncontrolled execution of such
   features can cause denial of service, which implementations MUST
   protect against.

   With the addition of SharedArrayBuffer objects in ECMAScript version
   8, it could be possible to implement a high-resolution timer, which
   could lead to certain types of timing and side-channel attacks (e.g.,
   [SPECTRE]).  Implementations can take steps to mitigate this concern,
   such as disabling or removing support for SharedArrayBuffer objects,
   or can take additional steps to ensure that this shared memory is
   only accessible between execution contexts that have some form of
   mutual trust.

   A host environment can provide facilities to access external input.
   Scripts that pass such input to the eval() function or similar
   language features can be vulnerable to code injection attacks.
   Scripts are expected to protect against such attacks.

   A host environment can provide facilities to output computed results
   in a user-visible manner.  For example, host environments supporting
   a graphical user interface can provide facilities that enable scripts
   to present certain messages to the user.  Implementations MUST take
   steps to avoid confusion of the origin of such messages.  In general,
   the security considerations for the host environment apply in such a
   case as discussed above.

   Implementations are required to support the UTF-8 character encoding
   scheme; the security considerations of [RFC3629] apply.  Additional
   character encoding schemes may be supported; support for such schemes
   is subject to the security considerations of those schemes.

   Source text is expected to be in Unicode Normalization Form C.
   Scripts and implementations MUST consider security implications of
   unnormalized source text and data.  For a detailed discussion of such
   implications, refer to the security considerations in [RFC3629].

   Scripts can be executed in an environment that is vulnerable to code
   injection attacks.  For example, a Common Gateway Interface (CGI)
   script [RFC3875] echoing user input could allow the inclusion of
   untrusted scripts that could be executed in an otherwise trusted
   environment.  This threat scenario is subject to security
   considerations that are out of the scope of this document.

   The "data" resource identifier scheme [RFC2397], in combination with
   the types defined in this document, could be used to cause execution
   of untrusted scripts through the inclusion of untrusted resource
   identifiers in otherwise trusted content.  Security considerations of
   [RFC2397] apply.

   Implementations can fail to implement a specific security model or
   other means to prevent possibly dangerous operations.  Such failure
   could possibly be exploited to gain unauthorized access to a system
   or sensitive information; such failure constitutes an unknown factor
   and is thus not defined by this document.

6.  IANA Considerations

   The media type registrations herein are divided into two major
   categories: (1) the sole media type "text/javascript", which is now
   in common usage and (2) all of the media types that are obsolete
   (i.e., "application/ecmascript", "application/javascript",
   "application/x-ecmascript", "application/x-javascript", "text/
   ecmascript", "text/javascript1.0", "text/javascript1.1", "text/
   javascript1.2", "text/javascript1.3", "text/javascript1.4", "text/
   javascript1.5", "text/jscript", "text/livescript", and "text/
   x-ecmascript").

   For both categories, the "Published specification" entry for the
   media types is updated to reference [ECMA-262].  In addition, a new
   file extension of .mjs has been added to the list of file extensions
   with the restriction that contents should be parsed using the Module
   goal.  Finally, the [HTML] specification uses "text/javascript" as
   the default media type of ECMAScript when preparing script tags;
   therefore, "text/javascript" intended usage has been moved from
   OBSOLETE to COMMON.

   These changes have been reflected in the IANA "Media Types" registry
   in accordance with [RFC6838].  All registrations will point to this
   document as the reference.  The outdated note stating that the "text/
   javascript" media type has been "OBSOLETED in favor of application/
   javascript" has been removed.  The outdated note stating that the
   "text/ecmascript" media type has been "OBSOLETED in favor of
   application/ecmascript" has been removed.  IANA has added the note
   "OBSOLETED in favor of text/javascript" to all registrations except
   "text/javascript"; that is, this note has been added to the "text/
   ecmascript", "application/javascript", and "application/ecmascript"
   registrations.

   Four of the legacy media types in this document have a subtype
   starting with the "x-" prefix:

   *  application/x-ecmascript

   *  application/x-javascript

   *  text/x-ecmascript

   *  text/x-javascript

   Note that these are grandfathered media types registered as per
   Appendix A of [RFC6838].  These registrations predate BCP 178
   [RFC6648], which they violate, and are only included in this document
   for backward compatibility.

6.1.  Common JavaScript Media Types

6.1.1.  text/javascript

   Type name:  text

   Subtype name:  javascript

   Required parameters:  N/A

   Optional parameters:  charset.  See Section 4.1 of RFC 9239.

   Encoding considerations:  Binary

   Security considerations:  See Section 5 of RFC 9239.

   Interoperability considerations:  It is expected that implementations
      will behave as if this registration applies to later editions of
      [ECMA-262], and its published specification references may be
      updated accordingly from time to time.  Although this expectation
      is unusual among media type registrations, it matches widespread
      industry conventions.  See Section 2 of RFC 9239.

   Published specification:  [ECMA-262]

   Applications that use this media type:  Script interpreters as
      discussed in RFC 9239.

   Additional information:
      Deprecated alias names for this type:  application/javascript,
         application/x-javascript, text/javascript1.0, text/
         javascript1.1, text/javascript1.2, text/javascript1.3, text/
         javascript1.4, text/javascript1.5, text/jscript, text/
         livescript
      Magic number(s):  N/A
      File extension(s):  .js, .mjs
      Macintosh File Type Code(s):  TEXT

   Person & email address to contact for further information:  See the
      Authors' Addresses sections of RFC 9239 and [RFC4329].

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Restrictions on usage:  The .mjs file extension signals that the file
      represents a JavaScript module.  Execution environments that rely
      on file extensions to determine how to process inputs parse .mjs
      files using the Module grammar of [ECMA-262].

   Author:  See the Authors' Addresses sections of RFC 9239 and
      [RFC4329].

   Change controller:  IESG <iesg@ietf.org>

6.2.  Historic JavaScript Media Types

   The following media types and legacy aliases are added or updated for
   historical purposes.  All herein have an intended usage of OBSOLETE
   and are not expected to be in use with modern implementations.

6.2.1.  text/ecmascript

   Type name:  text

   Subtype name:  ecmascript

   Required parameters:  N/A

   Optional parameters:  charset.  See Section 4.1 of RFC 9239.

   Encoding considerations:  Binary

   Security considerations:  See Section 5 of RFC 9239.

   Interoperability considerations:  It is expected that implementations
      will behave as if this registration applies to later editions of
      [ECMA-262], and its published specification references may be
      updated accordingly from time to time.  Although this expectation
      is unusual among media type registrations, it matches widespread
      industry conventions.  See Section 2 of RFC 9239.

   Published specification:  [ECMA-262]

   Applications that use this media type:  Script interpreters as
      discussed in RFC 9239.

   Additional information:
      Deprecated alias names for this type:  application/ecmascript,
         application/x-ecmascript, text/x-ecmascript
      Magic number(s):  N/A
      File extension(s):  .es, .mjs
      Macintosh File Type Code(s):  TEXT

   Person & email address to contact for further information:  See the
      Authors' Addresses sections of RFC 9239 and [RFC4329].

   Intended usage:  OBSOLETE

   Restrictions on usage:  This media type is obsolete; current
      implementations should use text/javascript as the only JavaScript/
      ECMAScript media type.  The .mjs file extension signals that the
      file represents a JavaScript module.  Execution environments that
      rely on file extensions to determine how to process inputs parse
      .mjs files using the Module grammar of [ECMA-262].

   Author:  See the Authors' Addresses sections of RFC 9239 and
      [RFC4329].

   Change controller:  IESG <iesg@ietf.org>

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [CHARSETS] IANA, "Character Sets",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets>.

   [ECMA-262] Ecma International, "ECMA-262 12th Edition, June 2021.
              ECMAScript 2021 language specification", June 2021,
              <https://262.ecma-international.org/12.0/>.

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2397]  Masinter, L., "The "data" URL scheme", RFC 2397,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2397, August 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2397>.

   [RFC2978]  Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
              Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, DOI 10.17487/RFC2978,
              October 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2978>.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.

   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

   [RFC4288]  Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
              Registration Procedures", RFC 4288, DOI 10.17487/RFC4288,
              December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4288>.

   [RFC4329]  Hoehrmann, B., "Scripting Media Types", RFC 4329,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4329, April 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4329>.

   [RFC6365]  Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
              Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>.

   [RFC6648]  Saint-Andre, P., Crocker, D., and M. Nottingham,
              "Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in
              Application Protocols", BCP 178, RFC 6648,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6648, June 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6648>.

   [RFC6838]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
              Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
              RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [HTML]     WHATWG, "HTML Living Standard", May 2022,
              <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/
              scripting.html#prepare-a-script>.

   [RFC3236]  Baker, M. and P. Stark, "The 'application/xhtml+xml' Media
              Type", RFC 3236, DOI 10.17487/RFC3236, January 2002,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3236>.

   [RFC3875]  Robinson, D. and K. Coar, "The Common Gateway Interface
              (CGI) Version 1.1", RFC 3875, DOI 10.17487/RFC3875,
              October 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3875>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC3987]  Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
              Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, DOI 10.17487/RFC3987,
              January 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3987>.

   [SPECTRE]  Kocher, P., Genkin, D., Gruss, D., Haas, W., Hamburg, M.,
              Lipp, M., Mangard, S., Prescher, T., Schwarz, M., and Y.
              Yarom, "Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative
              Execution", DOI 10.48550/arXiv.1801.01203, January 2018,
              <https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01203>.

   [TC39-MIME-ISSUE]
              TC39, "Add 'application/javascript+module' mime to remove
              ambiguity", Wayback Machine archive, August 2017, <https:/
              /web.archive.org/web/20170814193912/https://github.com/
              tc39/ecma262/issues/322>.

Appendix A.  Changes from RFC 4329

   *  Added a section discussing ECMAScript modules and the impact on
      processing.

   *  Updated the Security Considerations section to discuss concerns
      associated with ECMAScript modules and SharedArrayBuffers.

   *  Updated the character encoding scheme detection to remove
      normative guidance on its use, to better reflect operational
      reality.

   *  Changed the intended usage of the media type "text/javascript"
      from OBSOLETE to COMMON.

   *  Changed the intended usage for all other script media types to
      obsolete.

   *  Updated various references where the original has been obsoleted.

   *  Updated references to ECMA-262 to match the version at the time of
      publication.

Acknowledgements

   This work builds upon its antecedent document, authored by Björn
   Höhrmann.  The authors would like to thank Adam Roach, Alexey
   Melnikov, Allen Wirfs-Brock, Anne van Kesteren, Ben Campbell,
   Benjamin Kaduk, Éric Vyncke, Francesca Palombini, James Snell, Kirsty
   Paine, Mark Nottingham, Murray Kucherawy, Ned Freed, Robert Sparks,
   and Suresh Krishnan for their guidance and feedback throughout this
   process.

Authors' Addresses

   Matthew A. Miller
   Email: linuxwolf+ietf@outer-planes.net

   Myles Borins
   GitHub
   Email: mylesborins@github.com

   Mathias Bynens
   Google
   Email: mths@google.com

   Bradley Farias
   Email: bradley.meck@gmail.com