W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Feedback on Responsive Images Extension

From: Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 23:17:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CABbusAL0KQp_P8t8QJ-QRXbaHQXQFShiNzKj8d=Q9y66NpZ+NQ@mail.gmail.com>
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


Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 22:18:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 22:18:21 GMT