- From: <steve@steveclaflin.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 09:56:09 -0600
- To: Adam van den Hoven <adam@littlefyr.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Alex Bell <alex@bellandwhistle.net>, public-respimg@w3.org, Paul Deschamps <pdescham49@gmail.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Tommy Hodgins <tomhodgins@gmail.com>, Jason Grigsby <jason@cloudfour.com>, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, "Hall, Charles (DET-MRM)" <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>, Jonathan Kingston <jonathan@jooped.co.uk>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
So it seems that we could use "aspect" as an attribute on source tags, and not for img. I would like to then be able to say "A developer that wanted to use aspect could use picture if they want to supply the aspect value", except that there would be one image in the collection that has no aspect information, the one that is placed with img instead of source. I don't like the thought of putting that "default" aspect in the picture tag itself, but the only other solutions I can see are: 1. to also allow aspect for the img tag, or 2. allow the presence of a source tag that duplicates the img information. On 2016-12-22 17:22, Adam van den Hoven wrote: > We _could_ but I'm not sure that having the same attribute name that > has two different meanings and two different effects on two similar > elements is such a great idea. Aspect ratio is _mostly_ enough for > most cases so sticking with just the one attribute will probably be > the least confusing, unless the plan is to deprecate <img> altogether > in which case we can forgo adding new features to <img> and stick with > <source>. > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:03:51 +0100, Adam van den Hoven >> <adam@littlefyr.com> wrote: >> >>> Sorry, I was referring to the idea of redefining the height and >>> width >>> attributes to express resource dimensions. >> >> Ah OK. Right, we can't do that for <img>. But we could for >> <source>... >> >> -- >> Simon Pieters >> Opera Software
Received on Friday, 23 December 2016 15:56:35 UTC