W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2012

Re: [whatwg] <img srcset> for responsive bitmapped content images

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:47:51 +0200
To: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.wd3hx1kgidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:24:28 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> This proposal has a similar issue to image-set() - if the 2x means
> "twice the resolution" (which it should), this will *not work by
> default*.  If you make a 5 inch wide image and save it as 200dpi, when
> you send it to the browser its automatic size will be 10 inches wide.
> Browsers are constrained by back-compat to always display images at
> 96dpi.  You can get around this by explicitly setting <img width>, but
> we shouldn't require that if we can avoid it.
>
> This isn't hard to fix, of course; the fix just isn't included right now.

We should indeed fix it.

> CSS3 Images has the image-resolution property, which lets you tell the
> browser what resolution to display the image at (that is, how it
> should determine the automatic size).  You can say "image-resolution:
> from-image;" to get it to use the image's native resolution, whatever
> it is.  So, we need to add a rule to the UA stylesheet that says
> "img[srcset] { image-resolution: from-image; }".

Do we want from-image here? Or do authors prefer to serve 96dpi images  
that are bigger, and specify the intended dpi in the markup?

> In the closely-related case of using image-set() in CSS, we can just
> have the "winning image" set the default resolution.  An earlier
> version of the image() function let you set an image's resolution
> immediately, but we punted it for simplicity at level 3.  This would
> do the same thing.
>
> That all said, I don't like the "2x" notation.  It's declaring "this
> image's resolution is twice that of a normal image".  This has two
> problems.  For one, we already have a unit that means that - the dppx
> unit.  Using "2dppx" is identical to the meaning of "2x".  Since
> image-set() is newer than the dppx unit, we should change it to use
> <resolution> instead.
>
> For two, I'm not sure that it's particularly obvious that when you say
> "2x", you should make sure your image was saved as 196dpi.  You have
> to already know what the default resolution is.  As well, I think that
> values like 300dpi are pretty common, and they don't map to integral
> 'x' values.  If people say "screw it" and use "3x", this'll be
> slightly wrong and I think will cause ugly blurring.  If we make this
> take <resolution>, people can just use the dpi unit.

Can we just use CSS's 'dpi' instead?

<img src="default.jpg" srcset="highres.jpg 300dpi">

> I agree overall that this is the right approach - declaring relevant
> information to the browser and letting it decide what to do is better
> than trying to set up constraints by yourself.  For example, using MQ
> could result in the silly situation of downloading a high-res image at
> first because you're on 4G, then throwing them away and downloading
> low-res images when you drop to 2G.  Using image-set() or @srcset
> would let the browser keep the images it had already downloaded.

Indeed.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 13:48:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:08 GMT