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

Re: [whatwg] An alternative to <picture> and srcset, is this realistic?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:55:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCgacwnwZpJQriu75RyyrKgGHg1=n09B2a-MAY1vU+QkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com>
Cc: WHATWG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. Please also forgive me not being too
> technically aware of things at a browser level; so I'm not really sure
> how valid my feedback can be:
>
> The URI thing is actually using URI Templates, which are already
> pretty far along? http://code.google.com/p/uri-templates/ I thought
> this was a strong advantage of the idea.

I don't know of this having any traction within actual browsers.  It
might be a good idea, I dunno.

> Putting the variables into the CSS would break the advantage of them
> being available to the browser *before* the browser starts trying to
> pre-fetch images, right? Any solution has to avoid the prefetch
> behaviour or else it fails; so I don't understand how they could be
> moved.

That's why I mentioned an inline <style> at the top of the <body> -
I'm not sure if browsers skip past that when building the tree or not,
but it's *potentially* available.

> I am of the opinion that media queries actually belong in the head
> more often than they do elsewhere, both from a practical and semantic
> standpoint (see
> http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/05/13/an-alternative-proposition-to-and-srcset-with-wider-scope/#comment-752
> )

I don't necessarily disagree.  I wasn't arguing from a theoretical
standpoint, just supporting Anne's point that, from a practical
standpoint, putting things into <head> isn't always easy for authors.

> I had presumed that should multiple cases match the browser would
> simply uses the last matching one. There's already a polyfil in JS
> that does exactly that: http://jsbin.com/3/ecifaf/latest/

Yeah, you can't assume that.  They're conditions, and a page can
potentially match multiple of them at once.  For example, if your MQs
are "min-width: 1000px" and "min-width: 300px", a 1200px wide screen
will match both of them.  You can *make* them exclusive by adding a
max-width declaration as well, but we can't depend on that happening,
so the behavior has to be specified somewhere.

Similarly, we can't depend on *any* of them matching, so there should
be a default case that is used when nothing else matches.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 15:56:56 GMT

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