W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > March 2012

RE: -webkit-image-set

From: Ariel <asw3@dsgml.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:45:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
cc: public-respimg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1203231637310.29264@ybpnyubfg.ybpnyqbznva>

A : is just a regular character, so it's an ordinary file with no need 
for server processing - which is important.

I couldn't decide between the two options (regular file, or query 
parameter). I've actually been thinking that maybe we should support both:

<IMG src="foo.png" dpi="70 80 100" dpi-div=".">

The dpi-div character searches the end of the string for the character, 
then replaces it. So the above would become: foo.dpi=80.png

If the char is not in the file, then it's appended:

<IMG src="foo.png" dpi="70 80 100" dpi-div=":"> becomes:


If the dpi-div char is a ? then it gets special processing - it becomes a 
url parameter. A ? is added to the end of the src if there is none. If 
there already is a ? then an & is added.

The default would be a .

Another option:

<IMG src="foo.png" dpi="70=foo_70.png 80=foo_80.png 100=foo_100.png">

Basically after each dpi number simply put the desired url. It's more 
flexible, but much more verbose, and also more error prone.

I don't like the highsrc, or 2x things, because they are too limiting, and 
have no provision for the future. (Are we going to have 3.5x at some 


On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, Adrian Roselli wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ariel [mailto:asw3@dsgml.com]
> [...]
>> In my opinion the image choice should be in the HTML.
>> Specifically I like my idea (obviously :) which is currently option #9 on
>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/responsive-assets
> #9 is interesting, but the query string implies that some sort of 
> server-side processing will happen. Part of me thinks that limits the 
> folks who don't have their own server (or inclination or skill to 
> tinker), which includes so many of the sites on blogs. Those authors may 
> just always serve the large file because they cannot reconfigure how the 
> host behaves.
> Even the idea that the browser sends the request with a ":" in the file 
> name still implies some server adjustments to make the filename work.
> Unless I am missing something obvious here.
> Maybe it just stuffs the number before the extension, pre-pended with a 
> dash/underscore (image_70.jpg)?
Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 20:45:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:12:38 UTC