Re: [whatwg] Features for responsive Web design

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com> wrote:
> On 16 May 2012 19:47, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com> wrote:
>>> Also, srcset does not abstract the control points away from the image
>>> itself. I have already been over why this is a problem and
>>> future-unfriendly. Breakpoints are based on a when a *design* becomes
>>> visually broken, not on the width of a device. So, when a design
>>> changes, so will the response breakpoints, and that would mean having
>>> to revisit and edit every image that's had srcset applied - unless I
>>> am missing something (which given the last day or two, I may well be).
>>
>> You're right that changing your breakpoints requires changing all the
>> @srcset declarations.  An unfortunate aspect of our inability to
>> abstract away some of the functionality without breaking some of the
>> features (like being preloader-friendly).
>
> I must admit, I am still confused about the pre-loader issue. I'm not
> sure whether the plan is that we'd be able to convince vendors to
> disable it on <img/> elements containing srcset (or whatever solution
> ends up final) or whether this is something that has to be worked with
> now (in which case the <meta> variable idea seems to me the only one
> that could work).

Given the current syntax, the idea is that browsers will be able to
preload the *correct* image from @srcset.  They have all the
information necessary to make the decision at parse-time.

I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is, though.  Some better info
one way or another would be useful.


>> However, something similar to your idea certainly seems possible to
>> use in an extention of the syntax.  Rather than specifying a w/h
>> component, give a 'case' component that refers to a breakpoint defined
>> elsewhere.  This could even potentially extend into url-templating.
>
> That's the conclusion that was come to at the RICG too, and why
> http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/05/13/an-alternative-proposition-to-and-srcset-with-wider-scope/
> was put forward. I haven't received promising feedback from the WHATWG
> about it though :s

Yeah, I was purposely calling back to the post you linked above.

I gave it some criticism here in WHATWG.

~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 19:05:33 UTC