- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 10:48:47 -0700
- To: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com> wrote: > Tab wrote: >> Absolutely agreed. Like several others have suggested, I think we >> should just go with a "min-width:100px" approach, which is much >> clearer. It also lets us add "max-width", though that may complicate >> the resource choosing algorithm a bit. > > Just to be clear, do you mean changing the syntax so that Nw is replaced with min-width:N? > > e.g. > > <img src="small.png" srcset="medium.png min-width:600px, large.png min-width: 800px"> > > or > > <img src="large.png" srcset="medium.png max-width:800px, small.png max-width: 600px"> Yes, you got it. > Those two examples would then be functionally equivalent (give or take a single pixel) but allow developers to take a "Mobile First" or "Desktop First" approach according to their preference. > > Related question: do we still want to keep this unit-less i.e. ditch the "px" from the examples above? Or, if we're going to use this CSS-like syntax anyway, allow other units of measurement (e.g. ems). No, if we're aping the CSS syntax more closely, we should just use CSS units. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 17:49:55 UTC