On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > My apologies. I thought Christian Biesinger addressed all these > concerns with his proposal: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Christian Biesinger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > For a bit more presentation, and while we're inventing new syntax > > anyway, how about this: > > > > <style> > > @media (min-width: 480px) { > > .artdirected { content: replaced url(attr(src-small)); } > > } > > @media (min-width: 600px) { > > .artdirected { content: replaced url(attr(src-medium)); } > > } > > @media (min-width: 800px) { > > .artdirected { content: replaced url(attr(src-big)); } > > } > > </style> > > ... > > <img class="artdirected" src="foo.jpg" src-small="foo-small.jpg" > > src-medium="foo-medium.jpg" src-big="foo-big.jpg"> > > Specifically, his approach uses an <img> element, which addresses all > four of Maciej's concerns. > You're right, Maciej's concerns were addressed by Christian's proposal (and John's followup proposal). Any thoughts on my concerns with making inline CSS mandatory (especially from the CSP angle)?
