- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 22:11:25 +0100
- To: steve@steveclaflin.com
- Cc: Attiks <attiks@gmail.com>, "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 Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:15:46 +0100, <steve@steveclaflin.com> wrote: > Simon, > > Thanks for the reference to the issue. I see that both 85 and 86 apply > to this discussion. > > My one addition to the overall discussion is that it would be nice to be > able to offload the specification of the image source options to a > separate area (outside the img or picture tag). Then that could be > referenced in the picture or img tag. > > Again, it seems similar to defining a font. But, I can see arguments > for and against using an at-rule - the other alternative would be a set > of tags, which of course also has issues. An at-rule could define a > name (like theName), while a tag could have that as an id, and then the > srcset attribute would be "#theName" as a reference. Such indirection has been proposed for media="" (and sizes=""), to be able to define breakpoints in a central place and use them both for <img> and in CSS. > Benefits would include: > > availability of clearer and more verbose descriptions for the > individual images, I don't understand what this means. > reusability of descriptors Is it common to use the same image sets multiple times? I think in general indirection increases cognitive load for Web developers and increases complexity and causes bugs for implementors. c.f. https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Namespace_confusion -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 21:11:55 UTC