- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:20:03 +0200
- To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 2012-05-17 13:30, Kornel Lesiński wrote: > > My suggestion is that the srcset (or <picture>) should assume that > images are "2x" scale by default. > > > My reasoning behind is: > > - we have <img> for easy embedding of 1x images today, but we don't have > 2x <img> for the future. Having to specify width/height in <img> all the > time is annoying. > > - highdpi displays will become dominant at some point, it's only a > matter of time (they pretty much are already in high-end smartphones, > and are going to appear in laptops next). Bandwidth is also going to be > less of a concern, so it'll be rational and desirable to serve images > for the 2x resolution only (and just rely on 96dpi displays scaling them > down). > > Necessity to specify 2x scaling all the time will become a bad default > and a historical quirk (like the DOCTYPE), and a source of annoyance > where accidentally omitted "2x" syntax makes images large and pixelated. > > > So to future-proof the solution I think: > > <img src="1x.jpg" srcset="2x.jpg"> > > should be equivalent to: > > <img src="1x.jpg" srcset="2x.jpg 2x"> > ... As far as I can tell, making descriptors optional breaks the syntax (it allows comma both in the URI and as a separator between image candidates). (Please read this as argument for making the syntax less brittle) Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 12:20:56 UTC