- From: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 11:23:39 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Bruno Racineux <bruno@hexanet.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 09.11.2013, at 11:49, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > On Saturday, November 09, 2013 12:53 AM, Bruno Racineux wrote: >> On 11/8/13 10:46 AM, "Rafael Rinaldi" <rafael.rinaldi@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think >>> therešs no way to avoid verbosity to solve such thing. >> >> The only way to avoid verbosity on every <img> element would be to >> predefine a relationship between the names/keywords of your images and >> their respective sizes, ONCE in the <head>. The browser can then >> substitute the img suffix to get the right image, without having to >> spell-out the full image name every time. > > Well, an alternative would be to move the complexity to the server. I very > much doubt that webmasters are going to create all those variations manually > anyway. And if so, it's enough to store them according a naming convention > the server understands. There are already two proposals how this could work: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grigorik-http-client-hints-00 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-http-prefer-18 > > The browser then just needs to make sure that the right headers are set. We > would to be very careful though to not destroy the cacheability of > responses. > > Of course, some form of URL templating would work as well but that probably > would become quite complex. While this might be a good solution if you *have* a server, we need to find a solution that works without the server-requirement. There are tons of use-cases for respimg where no server can be provided (e.g. a local/offline App-WebView). Regards, Anselm
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2013 10:24:06 UTC