- From: Andy Davies <dajdavies@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:18:48 +0100
- To: "Nathanael D. Jones" <nathanael.jones@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
On 6 September 2012 22:21, Nathanael D. Jones <nathanael.jones@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm starting a new thread about the @type attribute, as requested by Adrian > Roselli. > > I believe it is critical that we REQUIRE browsers to SKIP source elements > which have an unrecognized (or unsupported) mime-type value in the @type > attribute. > > Otherwise, we will not be able to introduce to formats and simplify > <picture> in the future. > > @type should be an OPTIONAL attribute, not required, but if present, > browsers should handle it in a specific way. Widely supported formats like > jpeg, png, and gif do not need a type="" attribute, but webp and future > formats do. > > This will allow us to introduce new image formats in a backwards-compatible > manner. > I'm still wondering how relevant type really is... Yes it make sense when the element has a src but once srcset is used doesn't it open up a can of worms as the images in a srcset may not all be the same mimetype, for example, what should the type be for the following element? <img src="img.png" srcset="srcset="image.jpg 1x, image-x2.webp, #000" /> I can think of several possibilities but do any of them make sense? Cheers Andy
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 08:19:23 UTC