Re: [SRI] format of the integrity attribute from Martin Thomson on 2015-01-29 (public-webappsec@w3.org from January 2015)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:57:21 -0800
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Francois Marier <francois@mozilla.com>, WebAppSec WG <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXeyrFE=P8uiUZiv-muEiS6Lsokk2U79P+Z1JwNQLs5og@mail.gmail.com>

On 29 January 2015 at 00:04, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
>
> Did we not want to address the content negotiation use case? E.g. for
> <img> I could imagine the server sending either image/jpeg or
> image/webp (for better or worse).
>
> What Francois proposed would work. (Other hashes would simply default
> to the last MIME type given.)

So would mine, for the same reason.  But is conneg really something
you want to enable for something like this?

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2015 17:57:49 UTC