Re-raising the now updated JS mime-type issue (from #194)

[getify]

( I don't know why the conversation in #194 was locked (seems a silly overreaction), but whatever. I'm reopening discussion now. )

The proposed IETF RFC we had been discussing (RFC 9239) over in #194 has now officially been published. There shouldn't be any other question/debate about it now: the only official registered MIME type for JS is "text/javascript", not "application/javascript".

As such, it would be very helpful for this registry DB to update accordingly, as downstream utilities like broofa/mime and node-static are reliant on this database for automatically determining which MIME type to send for JS files.

[dougwilson]

Hello @getify sorry about that! At the time, the issue was in contention, the spec was still a draft, and more was being done. Now it is finalized, and there is an open PR. Unfortunately NGINX and Apache have still not yet updated, and those are sources for this database as well, so the database ends up with both mime types with .js as the file extension. We are working to get those upstreams updated and then get everything released 👍

[dougwilson]

Since type types are now marked as "obsolete" in IANA, I'm thinking that changing our pull logic to exclude types marked as obsolete, so that may help downstream libs like mime decide which type to use for .js extension -- the apache/nginx one or the iana one. So far, it's been a week and really have not heard anything back from those projects, so we may release a new db with both in there and the downstream consumers will need to decide which to use.

[dougwilson]

Closing this issue as the changes where already merged in to master, but the issue wasn't referenced on accident so the issue was not closed automatically.