- From: Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 17:22:16 +0000
- To: Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@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>
+1
I'd prefer type('image/whatever', 'subfeature', 'another-feature') to
keep it distinct from @font-face's format(), which doesn't use mime
types.
The spec would define the sub-features as and when needed.
On 20 February 2013 20:48, Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. skriver:> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Henrik
> Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net> wrote:
>>> Using mime types makes this a noissue.
>>
>> We've been over this. Other people have explained to you why mimetypes
>> aren't sufficient. Please stop suggesting this unless you have a
>> resolution to the problems that have been brought up. (Namely, that
>> mimetypes are insufficiently granular, as a single format may exist in
>> multiple versions with gradually increasing capabilities.)
>>
>> ~TJ
>>
>>
>
> You must have missed this:
>
> Liam R E Quin skriver:> On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 16:16 +0000, Jake
> Archibald wrote:
>>> The proposed system would allow for, eg, format('webp-progressive'),
>>> format('jpeg-smellovision').
>>
>> How about, format('image/jpeg', 'smellovision') ?
>>
>
> Looks solved to me.
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 17:22:44 UTC