- From: Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 11:17:43 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Keith <jeremy@adactio.com>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Am 17.05.2012 19:48 schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.: > 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. <h1><img src="small.png" srcset="medium.png min-width:30em, large.png min-width:50em"></h1> <p><img src="small.png" srcset="medium.png min-width:30em, large.png min-width:50em"></p> Is em different in these 2 elements, or is it actually rem? And whatever answer, is it a problem or a feature?
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 09:18:32 UTC