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

Re: [whatwg] Defaulting new image solution to 192dpi

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:20:03 +0200
Message-ID: <4FB4ECF3.6020701@gmx.de>
To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 2012-05-17 13:30, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
>
> My suggestion is that the srcset (or <picture>) should assume that
> images are "2x" scale by default.
>
>
> My reasoning behind is:
>
> - we have <img> for easy embedding of 1x images today, but we don't have
> 2x <img> for the future. Having to specify width/height in <img> all the
> time is annoying.
>
> - highdpi displays will become dominant at some point, it's only a
> matter of time (they pretty much are already in high-end smartphones,
> and are going to appear in laptops next). Bandwidth is also going to be
> less of a concern, so it'll be rational and desirable to serve images
> for the 2x resolution only (and just rely on 96dpi displays scaling them
> down).
>
> Necessity to specify 2x scaling all the time will become a bad default
> and a historical quirk (like the DOCTYPE), and a source of annoyance
> where accidentally omitted "2x" syntax makes images large and pixelated.
>
>
> So to future-proof the solution I think:
>
> <img src="1x.jpg" srcset="2x.jpg">
>
> should be equivalent to:
>
> <img src="1x.jpg" srcset="2x.jpg 2x">
> ...

As far as I can tell, making descriptors optional breaks the syntax (it 
allows comma both in the URI and as a separator between image candidates).

(Please read this as argument for making the syntax less brittle)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 12:20:56 GMT

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