- From: Paul Court <paul@pmcnetworks.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:53:27 +0100
- To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
I've been trying to follow this thread for a week now, but I'm a bit lost, so apologies if this is the wrong place.
As a HTML author and programmer, I just cannot see myself implementing the current srcset proposal on sites. As a programmer, it has very much got what we would call a "bad code smell".
<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">
Not to mention, what happens when a 3x device is released?
Do I have to change all my code again?
I'm also confused about what exactly 1x and 2x are. Is it 2x 72 or 2x 96?
and isn't 600-200@2 just the same as 1200-400@1?
Wouldn't it be more future proof, instead of making the author supply a never ending string of image names, implement variable logic (I think first suggested by Matthew Wilcox). However, instead of the suggestion of putting as a head <meta> tag, perhaps the logic could be confined to the <img> tag (or a <picture> tag to allow slightly smoother transition).
Perhaps something like this:-
<picture>
<src="some.img?{width}-{height}@{dpi}">
<img src="some-fallback.img">
</picture>
You could then define a list of parameters that the browser supports as replacements. Eg. viewport-width/height, dpi, density. This could also be carried over to other tags.
It also allows the author to decide what to implement as a fallback / low bandwidth option. Personally, I could make: <img src="some_{width}-{height}@{dpi}.png"> return a perfectly valid image on my webserver if an older browser failed to substitute the params.
Like I said at the start, I'm a bit lost as a newcomer to the debate, but there seems to be suggestions floating around for better / more future proof / more elegant solutions than the srcset above, but they don't seem to be getting any traction.
Paul
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 10:54:24 UTC