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

Re: [whatwg] Features for responsive Web design

From: Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 11:13:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMCRKi+M1O9Lojxhjz-4ubZJZy6Jw5YLubkAgBf4w7F64vG=FQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Constraints on where assets are placed and named? I do not follow your
reasoning here: You put them in the folder that's used for that design


I've seen no objections about that aspect in the Community Group
thread, where a number of authors have given feedback.

It addresses pixel density because it uses media queries and they
address pixel density. Any media query should be valid, so it's not

<meta name="case" value="large" media="min-width:900px;" />

you could use

<meta name="case" value="very-large" media="(device-pixel-ratio:2) and
(min-width:30em)" />

for example. MQ are by far the most flexible way of dealing with
reacting to device constraints.

What is set is the path to look for the image. This is *exactly* how
this works in CSS already for background-images and all authors are
familiar with this - you don't set the pixel density of an image, you
detect the device pixel density and change the path of the image you
send over CSS. Have a look at how almost any site is built and you'll
see *paths* change, not *image names*. http://enochs.co.uk is one

Requiring access to head is not much of an issue, and has not been
raised by anyone commenting on the CG thread. Web designs tend to be
3-7 breakpoints that are shared site-wide. The actual design of each
page may not be, but the breakpoints are. This is why site's with many
types of page can all share the same list of CSS assets to load:

<!-- Styling for all devices -->
<link rel="stylesheet" media="screen" href="/assets/css/screen.core.css" />

<!-- Styling for progressively larger displays -->
<link rel="stylesheet" media="only screen and (min-width: 320px)"
href="/assets/css/screen.320.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="only screen and (min-width: 480px)"
href="/assets/css/screen.480.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="only screen and (min-width: 750px)"
href="/assets/css/screen.750.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="only screen and (min-width: 960px)"
href="/assets/css/screen.960.css" />

We are proposing nothing different than that, but to set variables
rather than to load a particular CSS file.

If it works for authors using CSS, why should it not also work for
setting image paths?


On 15 May 2012 10:57, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com> wrote:
>> Please, have you taken a look at the latest idea?
>> http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/05/13/an-alternative-proposition-to-and-srcset-with-wider-scope/
> It was quoted and replied to in the email you just replied to.
> It has many problems. It adds a level of indirection, it imposes
> constraints on where the resources are located and how they are named,
> it requires access to the <head> element for adding an image in a blog
> post, and it makes processing of URLs conditional on information
> provided elsewhere. These are all significant issues.
> I also do not see how it addresses the pixel density use case. You
> cannot use a media query for that because a media query queries the
> pixel density of the device, it does not *set* the pixel density of
> the resource.
> --
> Anne — Opera Software
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
> http://www.opera.com/
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 10:14:14 UTC

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