- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:47:20 -0800
- To: Tim Kadlec <tim@timkadlec.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>, "matmarquis.com" <mat@matmarquis.com>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Tim Kadlec <tim@timkadlec.com> wrote: > To my knowledge the only implementor who flat-out refused to implement src-N > was WebKit. > > There is interest from Mozilla and Blink, though it did sound like Blink was > considering playing follow the leader. That's right. Blink isn't likely to implement a responsive image proposal that WebKit refuses to implement. Adam > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > >> > I’m just not sure what this proposal claims to handle or support that >> > `src-n` doesn’t, apart from handling it with a slightly different syntax >> > that’s subjectively preferred by a few people? Seems like it depends on a >> > number of fairly large assumptions, but doesn’t 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 18:48:20 UTC