- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 08:50:43 +0100
- To: "Adam van den Hoven" <adam@littlefyr.com>, steve@steveclaflin.com
- Cc: "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>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 16:56:09 +0100, <steve@steveclaflin.com> wrote: > So it seems that we could use "aspect" as an attribute on source tags, > and not for img. No, it's possible to introduce an <img aspect> attribute and have whatever behavior we want it to have. We can also introduce <source width height> attributes with whatever behavior. What we *can't* do is change what the existing <img width height> attributes do. > 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. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2016 07:51:22 UTC