- From: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 07:41:47 -0700
- To: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On May 14, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: > (12/05/15 7:17), Mathew Marquis wrote: >> It’s worth noting that a practical polyfill may not be possible when using `img set`, for reasons detailed at length elsewhere: >> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-images-how-they-almost-worked-and-what-we-need/ >> http://www.netmagazine.com/features/state-responsive-images >> >> Long story short: attempting to write a polyfill for `img set` leaves us in the exact situation we were in while trying to solve the issue of responsive images strictly on the front-end. We would be saddling users with a redundant download—first for the original src, then for the appropriately-sized source if needed. >> >> Where the new element would be all but ignored by existing browsers, efficient polyfills become possible. In fact, two `picture` polyfills exist today: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_images#Functional_Polyfills > > Sorry but I don't understand why <noscript> as used around <img> by > these polyfills listed can't be used along <img srcset>. > > If your point is that some Web developers will not cater for NoScript > users and chose to include <img> in <picture>, I think those authors can > use <img srcset> without @src too (if I understand correctly). > Scott Jehl has just posted a great write-up of some of the challenges associated with working around the `img` tag. https://gist.github.com/2701939 > > Cheers, > Kenny
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 14:42:20 UTC