W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2014

Re: [whatwg] responsive images srcalt proposal

From: Rasmus Fløe <rasmusfl0e@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 05:03:58 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAbbzm=oqRBQX-HcfYYCtnhbuetmFkijPQN+rofDPGo9nGfTkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Cc: "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
If you don't actually _do_ anything based on device-pixel-ratio besides
ramping up the dimensions you could just leave dpr out and let the
useragent figure out if it wants pick a higher res image:

<img src="/path/to/image-200-300.jpg" width="200" height="300"
    srcoptions="/path/to/image-{width}-{height}.{format};    200x300,
400x600, 800x1200; webp, jpg"/>


For sure srcoptions caters for automation/systematic naming. I don't think
that is a bad thing :)


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

>
>
> > Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:21:59 +0100
> > From: rasmusfl0e@gmail.com
> ...
> > Device-pixel-ratio can be quite relevant to include in urls; with an 2x
> > image compression artifacts in lossy formats (jpg, webp) are less visible
> > which in turn means you can crank up compression without losing visible
> > quality while getting an image that'll weigh roughly the same as the
> > equivalent 1x image. It's a very nice trick :)
>
> The images might be identical and your proposal does not allow this to be
> expressed.  It might be better to be able to enumerate all available images
> and to describe each so that the UA can make a choice.
>
> cheers
> Fred
>
>
Received on Sunday, 26 January 2014 04:04:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:15 UTC