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 10:47:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia9KuNdsGecDXSR1eyRa98+xm=FPsx-Gm=V2BHB=X=oRqg@mail.gmail.com>
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.
>> >
>> > 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 18:48:20 UTC

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