- From: pghj <pghjvanblokland@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:27:02 +0100
- 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