- From: Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 23:17:53 +0100
- To: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
- Cc: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>, Brett Jankord <bjankord@gmail.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
On 4 September 2012 23:03, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote: > > On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Anselm Hannemann wrote: > > We had this discussion a couple of months ago in the W3C community group. I > started it with the same intends as Andrew but after all it we came to the > resolution that it's not what picture is thought for. > If you define a picture-element you will most likely link to one image. This > image crop/color/properties can vary but not the image meaning / content > itself. If you want the meaning / content to change, just use a > server-technology or JavaScript to properly change the source and alt. But > it's no use-case for the picture-element. > > > Agreed: this is a case better solved by way of JavaScript or server-side UA > detection. If the subject matter cannot be accurately described by a single > `alt` attribute ( or additional descriptive markup, as discussed previously > ), it is a disparate set of images and not a case I feel we should account > for with `picture`. > I guess my question would be how does someone specify a 'null' image then i.e. have an image a certain breakpoints but no image at others. Resorting to JS to fix this seems the 'wrong' way to go to me Cheers Andy
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 22:18:20 UTC