+1 I'd prefer type('image/whatever', 'subfeature', 'another-feature') to keep it distinct from @font-face's format(), which doesn't use mime types. The spec would define the sub-features as and when needed. On 20 February 2013 20:48, Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. skriver:> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Henrik > Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net> wrote: >>> Using mime types makes this a noissue. >> >> We've been over this. Other people have explained to you why mimetypes >> aren't sufficient. Please stop suggesting this unless you have a >> resolution to the problems that have been brought up. (Namely, that >> mimetypes are insufficiently granular, as a single format may exist in >> multiple versions with gradually increasing capabilities.) >> >> ~TJ >> >> > > You must have missed this: > > Liam R E Quin skriver:> On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 16:16 +0000, Jake > Archibald wrote: >>> The proposed system would allow for, eg, format('webp-progressive'), >>> format('jpeg-smellovision'). >> >> How about, format('image/jpeg', 'smellovision') ? >> > > Looks solved to me.Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 17:22:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:06 GMT