- From: Anselm Hannemann – Novolo Designagentur <anselm@novolo.de>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:49:58 +0100
Ashley, so you think about the <img> element attributes like I proposed? <img src="myimage_xs.jpg" media-xs="(min-device-width:320px and max-device-width:640px)" media-src-xs="myimage_xs.jpg" media-m="(min-device-width:640px and max-device-width:1024px)" media-src-m="myimage_m.jpg" media-xl="(min-device-width:1024px)" media-src-xl="myimage_xsl.jpg"> (View as gist: https://gist.github.com/1158855) Or did I misunderstood you? -Anselm Am 07.02.2012 um 10:45 schrieb Ashley Sheridan: > 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 01:49:58 UTC