[whatwg] <imgset> responsive imgs proposition (Re: The src-N proposal)
tim at timkadlec.com
Fri Nov 15 10:32:40 PST 2013
To my knowledge the only implementor who flat-out refused to implement
src-N was WebKit.
There is interest from Mozilla and Blink, though it did sound like Blink
was considering playing follow the leader.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:25 AM, matmarquis.com <mat at matmarquis.com>
> > On Nov 15, at 12:27 PM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
> >>>> Any thoughts on my concerns with making inline CSS mandatory
> >>>> from the CSP angle)?
> >>> CSP 1.1 supports securing inline style and script with nonces and/or
> >>> hashes.
> >> OK, since the latest proposals keep the URLs outside the style,
> >> the content image can keep the same style, assuming layout is
> identical. So
> >> these inline-style are not more likely to change than any other
> >> inline-styles and the authoring complexity is identical to other inline
> >> styles.
> >> Still - I'm not sure such a solution is author friendly.
> > I’m just not sure what this proposal claims to handle or support that
> `src-n` doesn’t, apart from handling it with a slightly different syntax
> that’s subjectively preferred by a few people? Seems like it depends on a
> number of fairly large assumptions, but doesn’t really bring anything new
> to the table.
> The primary benefit of this proposal over src-N is that implementors
> are willing to implement it (or at least haven't refused to implement
> it yet).
More information about the whatwg