Re: Solving cases where UA, not author, must make the decision

We have media queries for both resolution and pixel scaling ratios: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-device-adapt/#the-lsquoresolutionrsquo-descriptor

There is some discussion about using just resolution, as well as some semantic arguments against it: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0409.html

Point being we do have resolution settings in media queries. As a language we also need to keep our language consistent and the WHATWG proposed solution presents an option that does not leverage or scale with current terminology but instead creates it’s own shorthand. Many of these issues can be solved by adding more media queries. Everything should be built on media queries so growth to that aspect of the language can positively effect images, CSS dev, and unforeseen future needs.  


_________________

Scott Kellum
scott@scottkellum.com
(347) 422-7572

scottkellum.com


On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Kornel Lesiński wrote:

>  
> Tab makes a good argument why model of evaluating media queries is not a  
> good fit for bandwidth-dependent negotiation:
>  
> http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4Hv0
>  
>  
> How about, instead of expressing outrage at WHATWG and lamenting rejection  
> of <picture> proposal, fix it?
>  
> <img srcset="regular.jpg 1x, retina.jpg 2x">
>  
> ↓
>  
> <picture>
> <source scale="1" src="regular.jpg">
> <source scale="2" src="retina.jpg">
> </picture>
>  
> The idea in the above is to declare which image is a "2x" one, and let UA  
> pick the one that is best suited to current screen/zoom/bandwidth and  
> availability of cached resolutions.
>  
>  
> Maybe the "scale" attribute should take values 1 and 0.5 (as referring to  
> scale to display picture at, rather than scale of the image itself)? or  
> called "size"? density? resolution?
>  
> --  
> regards, Kornel Lesiński
>  
>