[whatwg] <imgset> responsive imgs proposition (Re: The src-N proposal)
w3c at adambarth.com
Fri Nov 15 10:25:28 PST 2013
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:25 AM, matmarquis.com <mat at matmarquis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, at 12:27 PM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
>>>> Any thoughts on my concerns with making inline CSS mandatory (especially
>>>> from the CSP angle)?
>>> CSP 1.1 supports securing inline style and script with nonces and/or
>> OK, since the latest proposals keep the URLs outside the style, modifying
>> 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
>> 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
More information about the whatwg