W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2013

Re: [whatwg] <imgset> responsive imgs proposition (Re: The src-N proposal)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:50:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDB2CxFJqNDRvMtO1GUhMxdR9T7ZeW0VkgsWnUq1VGHu3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> * Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>> These examples... do not look good.
>>> I presume you mean that they don't look good in the <style> case, but
>>> actually, I don't know if that's accurate. Don't forget that in many cases
>>> the page will have multiple such images. You have to duplicated the img-*
>>> markup in each case. You only have to give the <style> block once.
>>Nope, you'll be duplicating per-image in both cases.
> (There is always an option to introduce one of the many macro proposals,
> or to make a dedicated at-rule or similar feature to avoid duplication.)

No.  My point is that almost all of the syntax weight is the urls and
their descriptors, regardless of the approach.  There is no compaction
scheme that helps here.  (Unless you're trying for one of the
url-template ones, and we don't want to go there.)

Received on Friday, 15 November 2013 22:51:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:14 UTC