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

Re: [whatwg] responsive images srcalt proposal

From: pghj <pghjvanblokland@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:27:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CALOJz9GUbn06vp7C394E6qnkvQwOW=QEtATsWLj2C1PrzEUNFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Fløe <rasmusfl0e@gmail.com>
Cc: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, "lists@ericportis.com" <lists@ericportis.com>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
>
> I was thinking that having simplified rules in your markup that try to
> describe image sizes related directly to device size would be tricky to
> match with more advanced rules in CSS [...] everything mentioned in
> srcoptions is related to element-width as opposed to device-width [...]
>

Yes, that's what I though when I came up with srcalt. If the markup (and
the effects it has in practice) are too complex, hardly anybody will be
able to use it (effectively)...

The naming convention isn't set in stone - that was what the urlpattern was
> for. [...]


I meant that, compared to srcalt, it lacks the ability to refer to an image
transformation by name, like in

<img srcbase="/path/to/image.jpg" srcalt="?s=small 200x300 5kB, ?s=large
400x600 12kB" />

I don't think that most websites have more than 3 to 5 differently sized
candidates per image, so srcalt attribute size would normally not be a
problem.

>
Josh.
Received on Monday, 27 January 2014 13:27:31 UTC

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