W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2013

Re: [whatwg] <imgset> responsive imgs proposition (Re: The src-N proposal)

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:25:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia-1z-4Vnp25oQrNboZGODwit2C_KeZ9t5s39vfD+QEWZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "matmarquis.com" <mat@matmarquis.com>
Cc: Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:25 AM, matmarquis.com <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, at 12:27 PM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
>>>> Any thoughts on my concerns with making inline CSS mandatory (especially
>>>> from the CSP angle)?
>>>
>>> CSP 1.1 supports securing inline style and script with nonces and/or
>>> hashes.
>>
>> OK, since the latest proposals keep the URLs outside the style, modifying
>> the content image can keep the same style, assuming layout is identical. So
>> these inline-style are not more likely to change than any other
>> inline-styles and the authoring complexity is identical to other inline
>> styles.
>>
>> Still - I'm not sure such a solution is author friendly.
>
> Iím just not sure what this proposal claims to handle or support that `src-n` doesnít, apart from handling it with a slightly different syntax thatís subjectively preferred by a few people? Seems like it depends on a number of fairly large assumptions, but doesnít really bring anything new to the table.

The primary benefit of this proposal over src-N is that implementors
are willing to implement it (or at least haven't refused to implement
it yet).

Adam
Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 18:26:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:14 UTC