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

Re: [whatwg] Media queries, viewport dimensions, srcset and picture

From: Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 17:29:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMCRKi+OgHUvFbEpYCHkG_bD8Pn-HWd28G4ubCEXfYS43ZAdfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Personally I think it's better than either <picture> or srcset alone.
But I don't think it's good enough even so, it still has problems:

* It's verbose (but less-so than <picture>).
* It has two attributes that could easily be confused as doing the
same job. There's little clear logic as to why they're split, from an
authors viewpoint.
* It bakes design properties into the mark-up. They will be the wrong
breakpoints come any re-design.

That last one is killer for me. And I've no idea how to address it either :s

-Matt

On 28 May 2012 17:23, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2012, at 3:58 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:18:25 +0200, Scott Jehl <scott@scottjehl.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With this proposal, could "src" be used on a source element if you don't need the features srcset provides?
>>>
>>> Or maybe, would that just be equivalent to srcset with a single source listed?
>>
>> I have no strong preference for src vs srcset with a single source and no density
>> qualifier, but yes, one of them should be available.
>>
>
> I’m a little uneasy at the silence following Florian’s proposal. I’d love to hear the WHATWG’s thoughts on this compromise.
>
>> - Florian
>
Received on Monday, 28 May 2012 16:30:17 GMT

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