- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:12:36 +0200
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