- From: Oscar Otero <oom@oscarotero.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:41:41 +0200
- To: whatwg@whatwg.org
Thanks for your answer, Boris. I understand the problem. Sending only the window dimmensions, screen resolution and other useful information available in media-queries can be enought. For example: Viewport: width=1024px; height=768px; scale=1; Or even connection information: Connection: type=2G; > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > >> On 6/25/12 1:34 PM, Oscar Otero wrote: >> >>> For example, for an image 100% width in a div of 400px, the browser >>> would send a header indicating it need a 400px width image. >>> >> >> The problem is that the browser typically does not know the following >> pieces of information when it sends the image request: >> >> 1) The styles of the image. >> 2) The parent of the image (or even whether the parent is unique; >> image loads are coalesced if the same URL appears in the page >> multiple times). >> >> It could have that information available if it waited a lot longer to >> request images [1], but right now browsers try to kick off requests as soon >> as they can. For example in this example: >> >> <!doctype html> >> <link rel="stylesheet" href="something.css"> >> <img src="whatever"> >> >> browsers will currently start loading the image before the stylesheet is >> done loading. With your proposal they would have to stop doing that, right? >> >> -Boris >> >> [1] Though in cases like this: >> >> <table width="200px"> >> <tr> >> <td> >> <img src="img1" style="width: 100%"> >> </td> >> <td> >> <img src="img2" style="width: 100%"> >> </td> >> </tr> >> </table> >> >> the actual layout width of either image can't be determined until the >> intrinsic size of both images is known. There are lots of other cases like >> this involving flexbox, floats, etc, etc. >> >> -Boris >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 12:13:18 UTC