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

Re: [whatwg] <picture> / <img srcset> not needed

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:14:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDNUf509N-CuUJqDthQ_=dzx6MAU4g2zCyt8A5rwVrV7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aldrik Dunbar <aldrik@gmail.com>
Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Aldrik Dunbar <aldrik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is *way* more verbose than either <picture> or <img srcset>,
> The HTML is far simpler (a single <img>), it keeps content separate from
> the presentation and it works today. More elegant formats (that load
> progressively) may be available in the future but the point is that we
> don't need any extra HTML markup.

It's still verbose even if you shift the verbosity into a separate
file; the shifting only matters if you're going to be reusing the
image many times.  I'm not certain that's the case here - if the same
image is being used over and over again, it's probably a decorative
image, not a content image, and so belongs in CSS.

>> doesn't interact with preloading
> None of the proposed options can be reliably preloaded, can they?

Potentially, yeah.  They only rely on information that's known at parse-time.

>> and doesn't do any kind of negotiation resolution.
> I'm sorry, not sure what you mean.

It's what the "Nx" component of the @srcset syntax is for - you can
tell the browser about multiple resolutions of the same image, and the
browser decides which one to request.  (See my blog post at
<http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4Hv0> for why this sort of thing is more
difficult than you might think.)

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 16:14:58 UTC

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