- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:14:42 +0100
- To: Attiks <attiks@gmail.com>, steve@steveclaflin.com
- Cc: "Nelson Menezes" <nelson@fittopage.org>, "Greg Whitworth" <gwhit@microsoft.com>, "Yoav Weiss" <yoav@yoav.ws>, Fréd\"éric Kayser\" <f.kayser@free.fr>, public-respimg@w3.org, "Simon Miles-Taylor" <smilestaylor@gmail.com>, "Ilya Grigorik" <igrigorik@google.com>
On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 18:39:29 +0100, <steve@steveclaflin.com> wrote: > I agree in terms of best practices, but I don't think the spec for img > disallows the use of urls with different aspect ratios in srcset. So > then a question arises as to whether the syntax should support legal but > bad practices. We don't need to support bad practices. We should generally make it hard to use a feature incorrectly. That suggests it shouldn't be possible to specify different aspect ratios for different URLs in srcset, since they should all be the same. However, it's possible that rounding errors causes the aspect ratios in srcset to be slightly different. For instance, say you have an image that is 1000x200. A scaled down version could be 333x67, which is perfectly fine but is different aspect ratio. If we want the placeholder box to have exactly the right size, this suggests we should allow (but not necessarily require) specifying width/height or aspect ratio for each URL. Also see https://github.com/ResponsiveImagesCG/picture-element/issues/85 for more discussion. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 10:15:18 UTC