Re: [whatwg] Proposal: defining script as <link rel="script" href="actualwaytoscript"> from Luis Farzati on 2014-06-26 (public-whatwg-archive@w3.org from June 2014)

From: Luis Farzati <lfarzati@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:05:49 -0300
To: Тимофей Маринин <marinintim@gmail.com>
Cc: "whatwg@lists.whatwg.org" <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <CAJVf_xoEqmxLpUwPHs+pKmsNCYb8f=h7cbMB8JoDY2vDSditiw@mail.gmail.com>

+1 to either <link rel="script"> much more than <style src="">.




On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Тимофей Маринин <marinintim@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Отправлено с iPhone
>
> > 26 июня 2014 г., в 19:31, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> написал(а):
> >
> >> On 6/26/14, 10:39 AM, Tim Marinin wrote:
> >> If not, then why we need <link> for css, only for legacy reasons?
> >
> > Pretty much, yes.  If <style> were allowed in <head>, we could just do
> <style src> (and in fact Gecko had support for that at one point).
> >
> Do you mean "if style src were supported"? Because otherwise I don't
> understand: a lot of sites uses inline styles in head, e.g. Jsfiddle's
> iframe.

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 19:06:34 UTC