- From: Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:54:41 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. skriver: > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On 20 February 2013 04:37, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I think EPS is old-school so shouldn't be included. (PDF is much better) >>>> The fact that it is executable code (Postscript is a programming >>>> language >>>> after all) should be enough to not include it as a supported format. >>> >>> This isn't a list of formats the browser must support, it's a list of >>> formats the browser must indicate their level of support for. >> >> I understand that. I'm saying that EPS should not be on the list because no >> browser will ever support it. > > While I'm fine with leaving it off, as was said before, this isn't > useful just for browsers. Including formats that are useful for > printing or other stuff is useful and zero-cost to other > implementations (they'll just not have it on their list of recognized > formats, so it'll be treated like any other unrecognized format). > > ~TJ > > > Using mime types makes this a noissue.
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 17:55:16 UTC