title: What's the point of Content-Script-Type and Content-Style-Type
body: <p>Consider these two lines:</p>
  
  <pre><code>&lt;meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript" /&gt;
  &lt;meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /&gt;
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>From the W3's documentation on <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html" rel="nofollow">Scripting</a>, in the section <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.2.1" rel="nofollow">The default scripting language</a>:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Authors should specify the default scripting language for all scripts in a document by including the following META declaration in the HEAD</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Yet it continues in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.2.2" rel="nofollow">Local declaration of a scripting language</a> to say:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>The type attribute must be specified for each SCRIPT element instance in a document. The value of the type attribute for a SCRIPT element overrides the default scripting language for that element.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Seems to me like there's an over-specification here.  Why are <em>both</em> the <code>meta</code> and per-<code>script</code> type declarations required?  What's the point of a mandatory default if we 'must' declare each tag individually anyway?</p>
  
  <p>Either let the default <strong>be</strong> the default, or just state that each tag needs it's own type - or is the wording here just getting me tripped up?  The same language is used with reference to <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/styles.html" rel="nofollow">style sheets</a> as well.</p>