W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2012

Re: [whatwg] An alternative to <picture> and srcset, is this realistic?

From: Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:28:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMCRKi+LZUo-PQNrVLdr5PKr7JXvgOfkhUQBrG2XNnn5i0wRrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: WHATWG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>
We're getting some good feedback over on the Community Group about
this, people seem to like it.

I'm still asking a few people to try and find holes in the proposal
though, reasons why it wouldn't work.


On 14 May 2012 17:59, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com> wrote:
>> All good points, thanks. Sorry I'd missed you saying <style> rather
>> than <link/>, my bad!
>> I had assumed that we would be able to take the logic for resolving
>> media query applicability directly from that in CSS, which is why I
>> have not given it any further thought. It seemed like a solved issue.
> Heh, it *is* solved by CSS, it's just that the solution is "somewhere
> between none and all of them apply", which works for CSS but not for
> yours. ^_^
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> On 5/14/12 11:55 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> That's why I mentioned an inline<style>  at the top of the<body>  -
>>> I'm not sure if browsers skip past that when building the tree or not,
>> They certainly skip past such things when prefetching.
>> Putting information that needs to affect prefetching in elements where the
>> HTML tokenizer can extract it is vastly better than putting it into elements
>> where it can't (like <style>).
> That's what I was afraid of.  All right, then, ignore that part of the
> suggestion.  This should live in HTML if it lives anywhere.
> ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 09:29:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:42 UTC