W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Feedback on Image modules

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:57:36 +0100
To: "Anthony Ricaud" <anthony@ricaud.me>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vnuwt9in64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:28:09 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Anthony Ricaud <anthony@ricaud.me>  
> wrote:
>> Plus, it ties the URL to the file format which is not a good idea.
>
> Theoretically, sure, but in practice the file extension is a very
> strong indicator.

This is a very bad idea. Every piece of infrastructure of the client side  
of the web platform today avoids making inferences based on file  
extensions. Changing that here is not at all warranted.

I'm also not really convinced this functionality is needed. In practice  
user agents will have to support the same image formats and similar  
fallback scenarios have never worked out. (E.g. <object> was a complete  
failure.) I don't think we should add this.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 17 December 2010 11:58:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:35 GMT