Just a small optimization/modernization to move the web forward.
<script> elements only need an explicit type when it is something
This is fully backwards compatible and compliant with HTML5.
Pardon the sloppy work. Embarrassing. Thank you, Travis.
Travis failed do to an unrelated server error. Thought I believe it should be fine now.
TL;DR; if the
type is no longer required so no reason to keep it around.
Including such marvelous legacy browsers as Firefox 2 and IE 5 (could not get a hold of even older IEs to test). This modernization really does not have any compatibility issues. It just makes the script more light-weight.
Including it is an old habit, however, it is time for it to die.
It is easy to test this. I checked this myself by running through browsershots.org. Every single legacy and modern browser showed up with an alert dialog.
Any unanswered concerns?
I'll try to find time next week to try it and will merge, as long as there is no other concern by anybody?
Thanks for the PR!
Hopefully you can update the pR with these changes and then I'll merge it!
I’ll leave this open for discussion for a little longer before acting on @mattab‘s suggestion.
If anyone want to do independent compatibility testing, that would be very welcome.
Reading up on the topic, your change is not compliant with XHTML and html 4, where the type attribute is a mandatory element. While I am certainly with you when you want to modernize the web, changing this and breaking validation of pages that are not strictly html5, is not a good idea.
w3c validation differs between html4 and 5:
Validation is a means not a goal. Compatibility should be the goal.
My goals were modernization and shrinking the tracking code (performance).
What is our decision regarding this PR? is anyone against it? if not let's just do it... :+1:
@Aeyoun could you please update the pull request so I can merge it with latest git? thanks in advance.
@mattab, I can do that in two weeks time unless someone wants to do it first. (I do not have time for it before then.)
@Aeyoun sounds good! please re-base + re-open the pull request if/when you can.