W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css4-images] Add format() hints to image()

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:11:42 -0800
Message-Id: <715880AC-6860-4545-B496-F3B6265A20D0@gmail.com>
Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:41 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 20 February 2013 04:37, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think EPS is old-school so shouldn't be included. (PDF is much better)
>>>> The fact that it is executable code (Postscript is a programming
>>>> language
>>>> after all) should be enough to not include it as a supported format.
>>> 
>>> This isn't a list of formats the browser must support, it's a list of
>>> formats the browser must indicate their level of support for.
>> 
>> I understand that. I'm saying that EPS should not be on the list because no
>> browser will ever support it.
> 
> While I'm fine with leaving it off, as was said before, this isn't
> useful just for browsers.  Including formats that are useful for
> printing or other stuff is useful and zero-cost to other
> implementations (they'll just not have it on their list of recognized
> formats, so it'll be treated like any other unrecognized format).

Exactly. 

I'm not sure there will never be a UA that supports EPS. There is a lot of legacy print content using that format, for both raster and vector images, that a UA _might_ wish to support. 
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 01:12:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:06 GMT