- From: Eduardo Marques <ebmarques@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:16:47 -0300
- To: <public-respimg@w3.org>
Hi Guys! English is not my natural language and I anticipate my excuses for something badly written or badly understood. I have been following all messages and so far did not see one saying: "To have more than ONE image file is senseless." If I am correct, then I am the first one saying that! :) Lets take an example? Lets say about a Real Estate Website importing Listings from RETS. It will have a MIN of 10,000 Listings (some, with more than 100,000 Listings). From my experience, I say each Listing have around 15 images. Each image have its correspondent thumbnail. Result: one RE Website with a MIN of 300,000 image files. That's a lot, huh? Well, I am used to see a lot of Websites with much more than that. Now I see the Picture Element Proposal: <picture alt=""> <source media="(min-width: 45em)" srcset="large-1.jpg 1x, large-2.jpg 2x"> <source media="(min-width: 18em)" srcset="med-1.jpg 1x, med-2.jpg 2x"> <source srcset="small-1.jpg 1x, small-2.jpg 2x"> <img src="small-1.jpg"> </picture> This example require 6 "versions" of an image! IMO, senseless! I mean, the above RE Website would need a MIN of 1,800,000 image files! Would love to read your comments and sorry if I totally missed something! []s Eduardo Marques ebmarques@gmail.com
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 09:51:51 UTC