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

Re: [whatwg] Features for responsive Web design

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:58:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4FB3B29B.3090204@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Le 15/05/12 09:28, Ian Hickson a écrit :

>     <img src="face-600-200@1.jpeg" alt=""
>          src-template="face-%w-%h@%r.jpeg"
>          src-versions="600x200x1 600x200x2 200x200x1">
>
> [snip]
>
>     <img src="face-600-200@1.jpeg" alt=""
>          srcset="face-600-200@1.jpeg 600w 200h 1x,
>                  face-600-200@2.jpeg 600w 200h 2x,
>                  face-icon.png       200w 200h">

Three comments:

1. from the point of view of an editor (I mean a wysiwyg application),
    this is far too complex and painful. With my BlueGriffon hat on,
    please trust me on that. Where is the harmony, the consistency with
    the multi-source video and audio elements? Why should browsers and
    editing tools have to deal with a different mechanism?

2. the %w and %h syntax above will clash with the necessary escaping of
    non-URL compliant characters and I think this is a _very_ bad idea.
    All examples I saw include filenames only but these are really URIs !

3. for the same reason, because some filesystems allow whitespaces and
    commas and more in filenames, the latter seems to me dangerous and
    certainly a bad idea. I know whitespaces in URIs will be encoded but
    decoding srcset will then imply parsing it to extract URIs before
    unescaping or whitespaces will become a problem. That's really too
    expensive.

It's much more subjective but I have an extra comment: the proposed
srcset attribute is absolutely ugly. I think the srcset approach is
wrong.

</Daniel>
--
W3C CSS Working Group, Co-chair
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 13:59:31 GMT

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