- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:10:59 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
- Cc: "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
- Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210111710380.1904@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Mathew Marquis wrote: > On Oct 11, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Markus Ernst wrote: > >> > >> IMHO as an author, the "bandwidth" use case is not solved in a future > >> proof manner > > > > It's not solved at all. I didn't attempt to solve it. Before we can > > solve it, we need to figure out how to do so, as discussed here > > (search for "bandwidth one"): > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012May/0247.html > > The RICG has proposed a solution to dealing with the overarching issue > of bandwidth; it’s described in the following post: > http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/06/18/florians-compromise/ > > In the interest of keeping relevant information on the list, I’ll > repost the relevant section here: > > It would assume a great deal if authors were to make this decision for > the users. It would add a point of failure: we would be taking the > bandwidth information afforded us by the browser, and selectively > applying that information. Some of us may do it wrong; some of us may > find ourselves forced to make a decision as to whether we account for > users with limited bandwidth or not. To not account for it would be, in > my opinion, untenable — I’ve expressed that elsewhere, in no > uncertain terms. I feel that bandwidth decisions are best left to the > browser. The decision to download high vs. standard resolution images > should be made by user agents, depending on the bandwidth available — > and further, I believe there should be a user settable preference for > “always use standard resolution images,” “always use high > resolution images,” ”download high resolution as bandwidth > permits,” and so on. This is the responsibility of browser > implementors, and they largely seem to be in agreement on this. > > In discussing the final markup pattern, we have to consider the above. > Somewhere, that markup is going to contain a suggestion, rather than an > imperative. srcset affords us that opportunity: a new syntax _designed_ > to be treated as such. I wouldn’t want to introduce that sort of > variance to the media query spec — a syntax long established as a set > of absolutes. How does this address the points in the e-mail I cited above? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 17:11:26 UTC