[whatwg] Features for responsive Web design
Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalmage at gmail.com
Wed May 16 12:04:38 PDT 2012
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mail at matthewwilcox.com> wrote:
> On 16 May 2012 19:47, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox <mail at matthewwilcox.com> wrote:
>>> Also, srcset does not abstract the control points away from the image
>>> itself. I have already been over why this is a problem and
>>> future-unfriendly. Breakpoints are based on a when a *design* becomes
>>> visually broken, not on the width of a device. So, when a design
>>> changes, so will the response breakpoints, and that would mean having
>>> to revisit and edit every image that's had srcset applied - unless I
>>> am missing something (which given the last day or two, I may well be).
>> You're right that changing your breakpoints requires changing all the
>> @srcset declarations. An unfortunate aspect of our inability to
>> abstract away some of the functionality without breaking some of the
>> features (like being preloader-friendly).
> I must admit, I am still confused about the pre-loader issue. I'm not
> sure whether the plan is that we'd be able to convince vendors to
> disable it on <img/> elements containing srcset (or whatever solution
> ends up final) or whether this is something that has to be worked with
> now (in which case the <meta> variable idea seems to me the only one
> that could work).
Given the current syntax, the idea is that browsers will be able to
preload the *correct* image from @srcset. They have all the
information necessary to make the decision at parse-time.
I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is, though. Some better info
one way or another would be useful.
>> However, something similar to your idea certainly seems possible to
>> use in an extention of the syntax. Rather than specifying a w/h
>> component, give a 'case' component that refers to a breakpoint defined
>> elsewhere. This could even potentially extend into url-templating.
> That's the conclusion that was come to at the RICG too, and why
> was put forward. I haven't received promising feedback from the WHATWG
> about it though :s
Yeah, I was purposely calling back to the post you linked above.
I gave it some criticism here in WHATWG.
More information about the whatwg