- From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 08:42:08 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CACj=BEjmYZXJMjDrL+Fk8w7eL1iSg8vnLwEyk=o3Xu_2FB=8mQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com> > wrote: > >> The image-set() function was originally designed to emulate the > functionality of the srcset attribute on <img>, back when it was first > proposed by Apple. > >> Today, though, the srcset syntax and functionality has been expanded, > and the <picture> element offers further elaboration on the concept. > >> It would be nice if CSS matched the functionality of HTML in this > regard. > > > >> 1. Allow, instead of a <resolution> value, an <image-size> value, which > is a dimension with a "w" or "h" unit, expressing how large the image is in > image pixels. (The HTML image selection algorithm does not yet use "h" > data, but it will in the future, and it explicitly ignores "h" descriptors > without dropping the whole candidate, so that in the future it can pay > attention to them.) It's resolved into an effective <resolution> based on > running the Object Sizing Algorithm with no intrinsic dimensions, to find > the rendered size of the image. > > > >> 2. Allow a format() function, same as @font-face/src, in each > candidate, taking a string argument specifying either a mime type or a > short name for an image type (defined in a table in the spec). If the > browser doesn't support or doesn't understand the given type, it ignores > the candidate. > > > >> Thoughts? > > > > As long as we don't bring the redundant sizes (which I don't expect, but > want to voice it now) into it then I'm all for it. I like the fact that you > took into account format support as well. Overall it seems like a balanced > approach. Let me know if you need any help spec'ing this ;) > > Yeah, no need for the equivalent of the sizes='' attribute; that > exists for the preloader, and CSS is already past the preloader almost > by definition. We can just use the actual laid-out size (as > specified, the result of doing Object Sizing Algorithm with no > intrinsic dimensions), which sizes='' is an approximation of. > On a separate thread [1], we were discussing adding opt-in preload hints to CSS. I also claim that it's fairly possible we don't need them to be opt-in [2]. If we want such preloading to be applicable to CSS images (opt-in or otherwise), we would need "sizes" like functionality in CSS as well. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0525.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0170.html
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 07:42:36 UTC