- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 14:53:40 +0200
- To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 2012-05-17 14:39, Kornel Lesiński wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2012 13:20:03 +0100, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > >>> 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). > > Indeed. I'm not sure which solution is the best: > > > - make descriptors optional only for the last URL (which will work fine > for the case where only the 2x image is supplied) > > srcset="a,b" is a single URL > > srcset="a, b" is an invalid descriptor for a single URL > > srcset="a 1x, b" is two URLs @1x and @2x Ugly. > - parse trailing comma in URL as a separator and hope no URL scheme > needs it :) > > srcset="a,b" is a single URL > > srcset="a, b" is two URLs > > srcset="a,#, b" is two URLs, first one being "a,#". Ugly. > - introduce some kind of escaping for commas in the URL part: > > srcset="a,b" two URLs > > srcset="a\,b" one URL "a,b" > > srcset="a\\\, , \,b" two URLs "a\," and ",b" Likely to be confusing because it's only needed in edge cases. Or: - delimit URIs in text content with "<" and ">" as suggested by RFC 3986 (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.C>). - don't use a microsyntax Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 12:54:37 UTC