- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 23:17:25 -0700
- To: Aldrik Dunbar <aldrik@gmail.com>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Aldrik Dunbar <aldrik@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Adding a new *presentational* attribute/element for adaptive/responsive
> images makes no sense and is not required. We already have a flexible
> image format that can accomplish this — SVG, e.g.:
>
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 900 1135">
> <desc>A painting by Edvard Munch, commonly known as "the scream".</desc>
> <style type="text/css" ><![CDATA[
> svg { background-size: 100% 100%; }
> @media (min-width:477px) {
> svg { background-image: url("https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg"); }
> }
> @media (max-width:476px) {
> svg { background-image: url("https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg/476px-The_Scream.jpg"); }
> }
> ]]></style>
> </svg>
This is *way* more verbose than either <picture> or <img srcset>,
doesn't interact with preloading, and doesn't do any kind of
negotiation resolution. There are good reasons for the designs that
have been discussed so far.
~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 06:18:19 UTC