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

Re: [whatwg] Features for responsive Web design

From: wrong string <kornel@geekhood.net>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:44:18 -0500
Message-Id: <20457752-A466-4F4E-9739-A56CB63EB28F@geekhood.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
Sorry, I forgot to clarify this ¡ª I had in mind adding width/height on each <source> element, not on <picture>.

-- 
regards, Kornel


On 22 maj 2012, at 16:01, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

> 
> On May 21, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Kornel Lesi¨½ski <kornel@geekhood.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> There¡¯s no prior precedent this sort of thing¡ªthere¡¯s no reason we can¡¯t find a way to preserve an image¡¯s intrinsic width using `picture`. I wonder if simply adding `width` and `height` attributes on the element (similar to `img`) might solve this, in the event that the author wants to rely on an intrinsic size instead of CSS?
>> 
>> I think that is a very good idea. Having option to do so is good for performance, as it avoids reflows.
> 
> If 'width' and 'height' attributes on the <picture> element would do the same thing as they do on <img>, then they would be setting the size via style, rather than setting intrinsic size. Even if setting the size explicitly affected intrinsic size rather than size computed via style, it would miss the point of intrinsic size, which is that images get automatically the right amount of space based on the image itself. Auto-sizing may not be the right choice for all designs, but it is for some designs.
> 
> - Maciej
> 
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 21:45:26 GMT

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