- From: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:02:35 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Oct 11, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > 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? Where you were stating that you personally had yet to propose a solution to the issue of bandwidth, I thought it might bear mentioning that there has been a fair amount of discussion around the issue. I apologize if I’ve diverged too far from the original topic.
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 18:03:10 UTC