- From: Eric Portis <lists@ericportis.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 11:10:55 -0600
- To: public-respimg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAKOuMHqMLhCCAhNygVrrbb3nOGUYSM-g0VQ2t9pi=9b2ErW_uA@mail.gmail.com>
Hello all, I just sent a big email to the WHATWG list, using a srcset example to illustrate the pitfalls of tying a responsive-images markup solution to viewport-size queries. Requiring authors to bake information about their layouts into their markup results in markup that is potentially complex and certianly fragile. http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2012-November/037772.html All of my concerns also apply to <picture>. Replace my "this is complex and fragile" srcset example with this: <picture> <source media="(min-width: 56em)" srcset="400.jpg 1x, 800.jpg 2x"> <source media="(min width: 32em)" srcset="200.jpg 1x, 400.jpg 2x"> <source media="(min-width: 28em)" src="800.jpg"> <source srcset="400.jpg 1x, 800.jpg 2x"> <img src="200.jpg"> </picture> ....and the "just let authors describe the resources" example with this: <picture> <source src="800.jpg" width="800" height="533"> <source src="400.jpg" width="400" height="266"> <source src="200.jpg" width="200" height="133"> <img src="200.jpg"> </picture> ....and it's an email about the <picture> spec. Thoughts? —eric
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2012 21:33:47 UTC