W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2010

[whatwg] Built-in image sprite support in HTML5

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:10:35 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin4wdmEEeWqW3uJ2+msp7jwz5001KCSshR-jpaa@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > As we adopt media fragment URIs into the HTML5 spec, we should prescribe
>> > what the user experience is meant to be, such that UAs can implement a
>> > consistent handling.
>>
>> I don't think it makes sense to have the HTML spec define what other specs
>> mean. We've had to do it in places, but only when the other specifications
>> have dropped the ball.
>
> I will take the desire to have a clear specification for what Web browsers
> are to do with Media Fragment URIs back into the Media Fragment WG. I
> believe Web browsers are a special and the most important use case for such
> URIs, so it makes sense to specify that clearly.
>
> It would, however, be good to have an indication where HTML would like to
> see it going. Would it be better for a media fragment URI for images such as
> http://example.com/picture.png#xywh=160,120,320,240? to display the full
> image with the rectangle somehow highlighted (as is the case with fragment
> URIs to HTML pages), or would it be better to actually just display the
> specified region and hide the rest of the image (i.e. create a sprite)? What
> makes the most sense for images?

I definitely think creating a sprite makes the most sense. There are a
lot more usage of spriting out there then there are of highlighting a
particular portion of an image loaded using <img>

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 19:10:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:00 UTC