No. I would use <script type="-json">

Myself and some browser engineers been working on proposals to allow for inline modules, including JSON, that are importable into other modules via regular import statements.

This is why I recommend the "-json" type - so it doesn't collide with a future native "json" type.

▲

SahAssar 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why not use a somewhat proper mime type like `<script type="application/mytype+json">` or similar? Seems like your suggestion is not what the spec recommends: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/scripting.html#attr-s...

▲

jfagnani 2 days ago | parent [-]

My understanding is that in implementations any unknown type creates a "data block", which is just unprocessed text.'

I wouldn't use application/json just in case browsers start supporting that and it has different semantics than whatever custom thing you might do, causing a webcompat issue when the native feature rolls out.

Although with JSON, it's pretty unlikely that there would be any differing semantics. JSON modules in JS are just JSON blocks with no special additions and no named exports. That's what inline versions would be as well.

	▲	SahAssar 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		But wouldn't a subtype like `mytype` in my example (`application/mytype+json`) still be be a valid mime-type and still avoid your concerns? I've used these before.

▲

alserio 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Thank you. And that proposal seems really interesting. Can I ask for a link if you happen to have one publicly accessible?