- From: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 19:55:08 +0000
- To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 5/13/12, Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net> wrote: > I think layout (media queries) and optimisation cases are orthogonal and > it would be a mistake to do both with the same mechanism. > My knee-jerk reaction to the above thought is that layout should be done using CSS and any optimizations left up to the UA. A bandwidth constrained UA could request a downsized thumbnail that fits the size of the <object>/<img>/<video poster>/<a> element, or render an appropriately sized bitmap from a SVG. The problem with that, though, is that then bandwidth constraints can't affect layout. Users should be able to configure UAs to use downsized images even given a large viewport, if only to save bandwidth and reserve a larger fraction of the viewport for text columns. > Adaptation of images to the layout is page-specific. Adaptation of images > to bandwidth/screen is UA/device-specific. > Quite. But the latter just might affect the layout. > Author is in the best position to adapt image to page layout. User-agent > is in the best position to determine speed/quality trade-offs. > But low-res images usually don't look too good when upscaled. Thus few pixels should mean small image, UAs mustn't default to pixelation. > Media queries MUST be interpreted exactly as author specified them. Thus we mustn't force UAs to pretend to render to small viewports to find low-res images. That would have unwieldy side-effects. > User-agents need freedom to choose image resolution based on open set of > factors, many of which are details authors should not have to think about > (presence in cache, cost of bandwidth, available memory, external > displays, etc.) > But the chosen image resolution might be a factor for choosing layout.
Received on Sunday, 13 May 2012 19:55:39 UTC