Re: <img src="..." defer>

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:22 AM, James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com> wrote:

> Separately, I think MUST might be a little strong. Let me give you another
> example... Imagine the user quickly fling scrolls past hundreds of pages.
> Must we fetch every image along the way just because each was in the
> viewport for 1/60th of a second? I'd argue it'd be better to skip them.
>

Hmm, good point, MUST doesn't make sense here, as you said, MAY is better.
Although that allows browsers to treat images as optional, and an
implementation that doesn't download images at all would be compliant.


> Why wouldn't we rely on an adaptive imagery-like technique all of the time
> though? It seems like if that works now, we should just continue to use it
> in future situations.
>

That will solve the Guardian & BBC case yeah, when that spec gets agreed
upon and implementations land. If that spec also captures format
negotiation, I'm out of use-cases for allowing JS to get at images before
they're requested. Fair enough.