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

Re: [whatwg] Features for responsive Web design

From: PJ McCormick <pj@mynameispj.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 05:38:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CABAKcDU0uvV7vJZhfz9X1TG=HC2qVXXaTrohsoy8-+qMHZF_rA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com> wrote:
>> > You're right. I was thinking that the values (Nh Nw Nx) described the
>> *image* but in fact they describe (in the case of Nh and Nw) the viewport
>> and (in the case of Nx) the pixel density of the screen/device.
>> >
>> > I suspect I won't be the only one to make that mistake.
>>
>> Indeed. I made the same mistake initially. The what's currently in the
>> spec is terribly counter-intuitive in this regard.
>
>
I also made the same mistake, and it took combing through all of
yesterday's and this morning's discussions on the topic for me to finally
understand it properly. And I consider myself to be a fairly competent
developer, not someone just starting out with HTML.

Now that I do understand I'm honestly happier with @srcset as a concept,
but my problems with the syntax itself still remain. In fact, they might be
amplified. Surely we can refine this into a better, more easily understood
syntax.




On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com> wrote:
> > You're right. I was thinking that the values (Nh Nw Nx) described the
> *image* but in fact they describe (in the case of Nh and Nw) the viewport
> and (in the case of Nx) the pixel density of the screen/device.
> >
> > I suspect I won't be the only one to make that mistake.
>
> Indeed. I made the same mistake initially. The what's currently in the
> spec is terribly counter-intuitive in this regard.
>
> > I can see now how it does handle the art-direction case as well. I think
> it's a shame that it's a different syntax to media queries but on the plus
> side, if it maps directly to imgset in CSS, that's good.
>
> It seems to me that Media Queries are appropriate for the
> art-direction case and factors of the pixel dimensions of the image
> referred to by src="" are appropriate for the pixel density case.
>
> I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to solve these two axes in the
> same syntax or solution. It seems to me that srcset="" is bad for the
> art-direction case and <picture> is bad for the pixel density case.
>
> (I think the concept of dpi isn't appropriate for either case, FWIW. I
> think "the number of horizontal and vertical bitmap samples doubled
> relative to the traditional src image" works much better conceptually
> for Web authoring than making people do dpi math with an abstract
> baseline of 96 dpi. Anecdotal observation of trying to get family
> members to do dpi math for print publications suggests that it's hard
> to get educated people do dpi math right even when an "inch" is a real
> inch an not an abstraction.)
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 12:38:58 GMT

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