W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Feedback on Image modules

From: Anthony Ricaud <anthony@ricaud.me>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 04:24:48 +0100
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1B20F18A-3241-4B89-AE05-6E6558520A79@ricaud.me>
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Le 12 déc. 2010 à 00:28, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :

> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Anthony Ricaud <anthony@ricaud.me> wrote:
>> And when a new format will come out, every UA will download this new format since it knows nothing about it.
> That's no worse than today's world, where every UA downloads *every* resource.
In today's world, there is no image fallback feature so why this comparison ?

>> Plus, it ties the URL to the file format which is not a good idea.
> Theoretically, sure, but in practice the file extension is a very
> strong indicator.
Strong indicator but a lot of images are served through scripting and the extension is irrelevant for those.

>> Wouldn't it make more sense to use the same logic as @font-face : format() ? Only known formats are downloaded.
> Possibly.  That's a bit clumsier in the functional notation, but it
> might work in a different syntax.
I agree that including multiple parenthesis might not be the best syntax, but at least the logic is better.
Received on Sunday, 12 December 2010 03:25:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:53 UTC