- From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:24:53 -0400
- To: "'Jeff Schiller'" <codedread@gmail.com>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Schiller Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:37 PM To: Ian Hickson Cc: HTML WG Subject: Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI > First - I do not think we should restrict the URI. For example > http://www.example.com/foo.php could return image/png. Originally, I thought maybe the > idea was to restrict the URIs to some predefined set of file prefixes (.png, .gif, .jpg, > etc) - but I then realized that it was asking the question of whether the resource that > the URI points to should be of a certain list of types. Since determining type by extension is fairly irrelevant on the Web (as you point out), the URI should not be restricted. > One simple option would be to state that the (proposed) MIME type of the resource must > begin with "image/". If that, for some reason, is not sufficient then I think we have to > go deeper and figure out what the purpose of a html:img element is. I agree with this, but it would also need to stipulate that merely having a MIME type start with "image/" is not sufficient for a user agent to be required to support it, particularly since many image MIME types require a fairly "heavy" viewer (like a Photoshop document) or a proprietary format (like QuickTime). J.Ja
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 05:25:52 UTC