- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 19:30:23 +0100
- To: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Tab Atkins <tabatkins@google.com>
- Message-ID: <CAKXHy=cQcAesp7s3KL8n0ryir8pa770bT8TzskS=yQzELwo-Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Splitting this off into a separate thread, and adding Tab (Hi, Tab!). Tab, I'm putting words in your mouth below, please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your opinions. :) On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > For CSS I think we want something like integrity-url(), but maybe CSS > should have a more generic mechanism as I suspect we want to be able > to control more there in the long term. E.g. CORS, whether Referer is > emitted, whether cookies are included, etc. So maybe we should have > url() and fetch() where fetch() allows for metadata. > Tab's suggestion was something like this: .coolClass { background-image: integrity('http://example.com/img.png', 'ni:///sha256;jfoiajfija...'); } He wasn't a fan of the integrity block at the top of the file, as it would quickly get out of sync with the resources in the file. I suggested that build tools would be almost required for a scheme like this anyway, he was not impressed. :) A more generic 'fetch()' sounds interesting. I'm not sure I'd appreciate a new CSS thing with positional arguments, and I don't know of any other CSS thing with named parameters. *shrug* I'm not at all sure how something like that would fit into the larger picture of CSS grammar. Tab, I assume, will have opinions. -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com> Google+: https://mkw.st/+, Twitter: @mikewest, Cell: +49 162 10 255 91 Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
Received on Saturday, 11 January 2014 18:31:11 UTC