[whatwg] <imgset> responsive imgs proposition (Re: The src-N proposal)

[Adam Barth]

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Tim Kadlec <tim at timkadlec.com> wrote:
> 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.

That's right.  Blink isn't likely to implement a responsive image
proposal that WebKit refuses to implement.

Adam


> 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>
>> 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
>> >>> hashes.
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> 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).
>>
>> Adam
>
>