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

Re: [whatwg] <picture> / <img srcset> not needed

From: Aldrik Dunbar <aldrik@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 00:44:13 +0200
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120516224413.GH17660@calcifer>
Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
> It's still verbose even if you shift the verbosity into a separate
> file; the shifting only matters if you're going to be reusing the
> image many times.  I'm not certain that's the case here - if the same
> image is being used over and over again, it's probably a decorative
> image, not a content image, and so belongs in CSS.

I hadn't thought much about the reuse case which is a plus. For example 
image hosters could provide a single url which could seamlessly be 
embedded on forums and blogs, linked to on twitter, etc and all without 
the users ever having to worry about image size/dpi.

> >> and doesn't do any kind of negotiation resolution.
> > I'm sorry, not sure what you mean.
> 
> It's what the "Nx" component of the @srcset syntax is for - you can
> tell the browser about multiple resolutions of the same image, and the
> browser decides which one to request.  (See my blog post at
> <http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4Hv0> for why this sort of thing is more
> difficult than you might think.)

Yep, Odin also kindly pointed me towards your blog.

I don't really see how srcset makes implementing a "low 
bandwidth/resolution mode" much easier. Such a mode would lower the CSS 
resolution and the appropriate file gets requested. This could be done 
selectively for each SVG, starting at default dpi and upon a request of 
a non cached resource while in low-mode quit and reprocess the media 
queries with the lower resolution.

Of course if someone comes up with a progressively loaded image format 
this could be handled much more elegantly.
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 22:44:53 GMT

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