- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:26:06 +0100
- To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- Cc: David Newton <david@davidnewton.ca>, Peter Gasston <pgasston@gmail.com>, Kevin Suttle <kevin@kevinsuttle.com>, public-respimg@w3.org
On Monday, October 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM, François REMY wrote: > | it's to allow devs to specify format types with their images, with > fallbacks. > > Isn't the mime-type sufficient in this case? That way you can remain > futureproof and avoid to enter the real format debate. That adds complexity, IMHO… because it means reliance on server side technology: 1. Author declares: <img srcset="small, medium 2x, big 3x"> 2. Browser requests image, "medium", with Accepts: list of formats; 3. Server inspects Accept header, and serves "medium" as, for example, WebP. (in step 3, some kind of logic is needed on the server to prioritize a format) Versus, for example: <picture> <source type="image/webp" srcset="small.wp, medium.wp 2x, big.wp 3x"> <source srcset="small.gif, medium.png, big.jpg"> </picture> Where the browser chooses they type it supports (e.g., on a first match basis). -- Marcos Caceres
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 16:26:35 UTC