- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 15:02:01 +0300
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
2013-09-27 23:24, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> But there’s a different approach to implementing a similar idea. Just >> use @media queries as currently defined and implemented, and use CSS >> code like > CSS is intended for stylesheets. Obviously, yes, and style sheets are intended for making optional presentational suggestions, as opposite to structure (and, to a small degree, "semantics") and content, which are in the realm of HTML. An image is content, no doubt, unless it is specifically for decoration only. The different image formats and sizes and other versions of an image are styling, are they not? > And stylesheets are often external to > the page and external to the element. CSS @-rules are not permitted > inside the style attribute. I don't think anyone in this discussion has favored the style attribute- > A CSS approach means that each time you added an <img>, you would have > to *also* add CSS - in a stylesheet that is external to the page. > > It is possible. But a *very* impractical way to solve the problem. Separating presentation from content comes with a price. I think the price is sometimes too high (though most people involved in HTML5 don't seem to think so), but I don't think it's excessively high here. So you add an image. If you add it in different versions, then you need to upload them all and write rules that specify which of them is used in which situation. Don't you think this is better suited for CSS work, rather than adding URLs of the different versions into HTML markup? Now, there's the bandwidth issue. If your markup has just <img src=foo.png alt=bar>, then the browser more or less has to fetch foo.png. This should not matter much is foo.png is the smallest (in file size) version. But if it does matter, then you can just have <img alt=bar> (at the cost of having the alt text rendered instead of the image in browsers that do not support image replacement in CSS). So my suggestion is: Use the *existing* technology of CSS image replacement, make it a separate "standard" (probably best a separate CSS recommendation, if the old WD does not look promising), and ask those browser vendors that have not implemented it to do so. This is a far more direct way. It does not exclude the addition of new attributes to HTML if they will be regarded as useful). But I think duplicating media dependency, already defined for CSS, in HTML would be confusing, especially to people who have take the Separation of Content from Presentation seriously. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2013 12:02:23 UTC