- From: Jacob Mather <jmather@itsmajax.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 15:26:16 -0400
- To: Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, PJ McCormick <pj@mynameispj.com>
I had mentioned to you before that I had this little 'niggle' of a feeling of something wrong about that, and I figured out what it is. If you move the decision of /which/ image is the correct image to the head of a document, then the content is no longer autonomous and semantic, because the content alone no longer contains everything needed to know to understand the content. On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com> wrote: > On 16 May 2012 20:12, Jacob Mather <jmather@itsmajax.com> wrote: >> Maybe this is the better question: >> >> Why does the pre-loader matter so much? >> >> Basing the selected image off of browser width is inherently >> backwards. The content should be informed by the layout, not by the >> browser. >> > > I do agree with you (it's all about layout rather than screen width - > it's the layout that dictates the content images and it's the screen > width that dictates the layout - there's a clear stack of dependancies > and at the moment that isn't reflected in the technology we use). > However I think the problem right now is that at the time the browser > see's the <img /> it is likely to not know the layout. The CSS hasn't > loaded yet and the layout hasn't been applied - so the image can't > know how big it needs to be. This is why I put forward the idea of > setting breakpoints in the <head> as a <meta> tag. That is the one and > only place that other technologies can be sure will have already been > loaded.
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 19:26:50 UTC