- From: Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 17:29:45 +0100
- To: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Personally I think it's better than either <picture> or srcset alone. But I don't think it's good enough even so, it still has problems: * It's verbose (but less-so than <picture>). * It has two attributes that could easily be confused as doing the same job. There's little clear logic as to why they're split, from an authors viewpoint. * It bakes design properties into the mark-up. They will be the wrong breakpoints come any re-design. That last one is killer for me. And I've no idea how to address it either :s -Matt On 28 May 2012 17:23, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote: > > On May 24, 2012, at 3:58 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote: > >> On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:18:25 +0200, Scott Jehl <scott@scottjehl.com> wrote: >> >>> With this proposal, could "src" be used on a source element if you don't need the features srcset provides? >>> >>> Or maybe, would that just be equivalent to srcset with a single source listed? >> >> I have no strong preference for src vs srcset with a single source and no density >> qualifier, but yes, one of them should be available. >> > > I’m a little uneasy at the silence following Florian’s proposal. I’d love to hear the WHATWG’s thoughts on this compromise. > >> - Florian >
Received on Monday, 28 May 2012 16:30:17 UTC