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

Re: [whatwg] Implementation complexity with elements vs an attribute (responsive images)

From: Jason Grigsby <jason@cloudfour.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 11:36:37 +0200
Message-Id: <2533DEBB-D2E4-48C0-BA59-7D722B7DA2BE@cloudfour.com>
To: David Goss <dvdgoss@gmail.com>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On May 13, 2012, at 9:51 AM, David Goss wrote:

> A common sentiment here seems to be that the two proposed responsive
> image solutions solve two different use cases:

After skyping with Mat (@wilto) last night, I think I may be the only one who didn’t fully grok that the mediaqueries in <picture> could be used to address both use cases. 

It is still unclear to me if <img srcset> would address both.

> I also agree with many other
> developers that <picture> is definitely the more developer-friendly
> syntax, in terms of reading, writing, maintaining and scripting.


Edward’s original <img srcset> proposal was pretty straight forward, but as it has grown to try to address more use cases, the syntax has become more convoluted[1]. I read the latest proposal multiple times last night and still couldn’t figure out how it would work.

It may be that the proposal is written in language that implementors understand and that it needs to be rewritten to make it clearer for authors how it would work. Or it could be an indication that the syntax is too terse and confusing for authors (which is currently the feedback the community group is receiving).

-Jason

[1] http://junkyard.damowmow.com/507
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2012 09:37:09 GMT

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