- From: Ashley Sheridan <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:45:02 +0000
On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 23:15 +0000, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:23:37 -0000, Mathew Marquis <mat at matmarquis.com> > wrote: > > I recently published a sum-up of our thinking at A List Apart ( > > http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-images-how-they-almost-worked-and-what-we-need/ > > )?in short, using the <video> markup pattern as the inspiration, with > > the use of media attributes on the <source> elements to determine the > > rendered source, and the inclusion of an <img>--ideally a smaller image, > > to account for the lowest-common-denominator--as a fallback similar to > > the way Flash or an image might be used as a <video> fallback. > > > Why not use a media attribute of <object>? That way you should get media > type disambiguation for free. The main problem I see with that is that the <object> tag doesn't have the same accessibility attributes, so you'd effectively lock out a lot of people using browsers that don't understand the context of the tag in this case. I think the better way is to add something to the <img> tag as you'd still have full backwards compatibility. -- Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 01:45:02 UTC