- From: <steve@steveclaflin.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 10:03:51 -0600
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: Adam van den Hoven <adam@littlefyr.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>
Sorry for the confusion. I had thought that earlier in the discussion, someone had raised a good objection to using "aspect" as an attribute for the img tag. However, in looking back through earlier messages, I don't see that. But, that belief is why I not only made the statement that you commented on, but also why I "added it back" as item #1 at the end of what you quoted. So consider me in favor of "aspect" as an attribute of img, source, and tags for other elements that have or may have an intrinsic aspect ratio. As a side note, this discussion seems to more or less duplicate issue #85 (https://github.com/ResponsiveImagesCG/picture-element/issues/85), although it seems that discussion there has more or less faded away. On 2016-12-27 01:50, Simon Pieters wrote: > 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.
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2016 16:04:22 UTC