- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 09:29:54 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Anthony Ricaud <anthony@ricaud.me>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:28:09 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Anthony Ricaud <anthony@ricaud.me> >> wrote: >>> >>> 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. > > This is a very bad idea. Every piece of infrastructure of the client side of > the web platform today avoids making inferences based on file extensions. > Changing that here is not at all warranted. > > I'm also not really convinced this functionality is needed. In practice user > agents will have to support the same image formats and similar fallback > scenarios have never worked out. (E.g. <object> was a complete failure.) I > don't think we should add this. Do you think the idea of an image fallback function is useful at all? Or are you just objecting to the manner of indicating the image format? ~TJ
Received on Friday, 17 December 2010 17:30:46 UTC