W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2010

[whatwg] Resolutions meta tag proposal

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:12:36 +0200
Message-ID: <op.vfe77ano64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:52:24 +0200, Andr? Lu?s <andreluis.pt at gmail.com>  
wrote:
> [...] i still prefer the way I suggested earlier, to
> make <img> work like the other media tags: <video> <audio>, with child
> <source> elements that could have either a resolution="96" (per
> proposal of Roger) attribute or a media query...

We cannot have child elements for <img>. Content (legacy and new)  
constraints how <img> is and will be parsed.


> Anyway, is it still time to have this conversation? Will additions to
> the spec be considered?

Yes, though extensions to the <meta> element can be done independently  
 from the specification. As a standalone specification.


> Since this Retina (high res screens) business is very new, there isn't
> much real-world usage to harvest proof of... but is there a process or
> a set of steps a proposal must go through?

There is a somewhat informal process, yes:

http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F


Personally I do not think detailed control is needed at all. It requires  
way too much configuration and hassle for little benefit. What Dave Hyatt  
outlined in http://webkit.org/blog/55/high-dpi-web-sites/ for the img  
element is good enough. I.e. always load the high resolution version and  
scale it down for "lesser" displays using height/width. Sure, some more  
bandwidth is used, but that is not a big deal, especially if you consider  
that the higher resolution version goes to the device with less bandwidth.  
So if bandwidth was a concern we would not be having this discussion.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 05:12:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:24 UTC