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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 08:05:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAcbsn1q--QavHgnmDv4LuZry1PvksLqJX-y8HEoWV2=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net> 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).

I think this will be a confusing change that will hurt more than it
helps.  URLs in @srcset should act exactly like URLs in @src, except
where modified by the descriptors.

> 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.

I think that 2x only looks like a good default now. I would bet that
in less than 10 years 3x or higher will look like a good default.  I'd
rather not bake in a confusing change that doesn't actually
future-proof anything.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 15:06:10 GMT

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