- From: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 18:59:05 +0100
- To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
I wrote: > Well, right now the spec text says: > > "omitted width descriptors and height descriptors are considered to have the value "Infinity"" > > Does that mean I could ditch the 92000w and just leave it blank? > > <img src="small.png" srcset="small.png 600w, medium.png 800w, large.png"> But I know realise that, according to the spec, I *must* specify at least one value. So actually I'd have to write: <img src="small.png" srcset="small.png 600w, medium.png 800w, large.png 1x"> ...which seems to muddy the waters a bit. I actually don't care about the pixel-density of the device in this case, but I need to write 1x because I have to include at least one value. I much prefer Tab's suggestion: > I think we should just go with a "min-width:100px" approach, which is much clearer. > It also lets us add "max-width" I asked: > 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). And Tab replied: > No, if we're aping the CSS syntax more closely, we should just use CSS units. I agree. Seems like the sensible approach. It also allows authors who are using ems for their media queries in CSS to also use ems for their srcset declarations. Jeremy -- Jeremy Keith a d a c t i o http://adactio.com/
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 17:59:43 UTC