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

[whatwg] Throwing in my support for <picture> into the mix

From: Paul Court <paul@pmcnetworks.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:28:41 +0100
Message-Id: <5B0D45CA-AFB3-4EB9-A742-04422B94733B@pmcnetworks.co.uk>
To: whatwg@whatwg.org
I have joined this list after reading @wilto's a list apart article (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-images-and-web-standards-at-the-turning-point/) and realised it was about time I stopped sitting on the sideline and get involved in the debate.

I have searched the archives as best as I can over the last hour or so, so forgive me if this is regurgitated.

First, I would like to suggest throwing <img srcset> out the window and into a landfill somewhere (It's not even fit for recycling!). This reminds me if the recent semi-colon in JavaScript "debate" that erupted as a result of @fat's code in the Twitter Bootstrap project - To one or two people who are very specialised in their particular area, it seems like a non issue - and I think that is the case with the <img srcset> syntax. From a browser developer point of view it might be easier to implement, but from a "I'm just learning to code" point of view, that syntax is bat-shit crazy!

Second, I'll add my support for the proposed <picture> + <source> tag version, as a much more readable implementation, and also shows similarity with the <video> tag already in use, so it should be easier to pick up.

Finally, wouldn't it be more productive in the long run to define a "template" if you will for situations where alternate versions of the same "element" are required. Obviously, we already have <video> + <source>, perhaps before long <picture> + <source>, and I am sure there are others. 

(What was the reason for ditching the <object> + <param> tags again? because we just seem to be re-implementing them with different names!)

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 09:29:19 UTC

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