If there’s flexibility ("no rule"), you’d prefer deciding based on context.

But if a standard must be chosen, you lean toward always quoting keys to avoid ambiguity, aligning with the majority of current JavaScript documentation practices.

This approach strikes a balance between flexibility and consistency, ensuring that your code remains unambiguous and compatible across different environments and tools

FWIW, there are specific cases where single quotes are required in some docs - i.e in CSP you might have developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Content-Security-Policy/frame-ancestors#none

@hamishwillee I think "'none'" would be more correct as they've done in the specs: https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-csp/#directive-frame-ancestors
The 'none' is a whole thing in CSP, including the single quotes. It is not just the none word.

In HTTP there's nothing other than a "string", so any extra quotes are redundant. We are only talking about JavaScript values where "1" and 1 are meaningfully different.

Sure, I just wanted to make sure any linting didn't swap these cases to double quotes.

So, single quotes for the HTTP headers and double for JavaScript, right?

No no. Whatever source text is required by HTTP, we write that literally. HTTP says the text has to contain 'none'? We write 'none'. It requires text/javascript? We write text/javascript.