- From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:51:59 -0400
- To: Ariel <asw3@dsgml.com>
- CC: <public-respimg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ariel [mailto:asw3@dsgml.com] > > A : is just a regular character, so it's an ordinary file with no need for server > processing - which is important. That was the obvious part I missed. I keyed into that and the "=" and made an assumption. > 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: > > foo.png:dpi=80 > > 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 like the concept, but I do see it as very error-prone, and suspect adoption would suffer. Especially when <video> (for example) has such a dramatically different method for specifying alternate content, even if the metaphor is slightly different (file formats instead of image sizes). I just spent a couple minutes at the W3C site for this list and see there is plenty of catching up I need to do to review the other options.
Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 20:52:28 UTC