[whatwg] add html-attribute for "responsive images"

[Anselm Hannemann – Novolo Designagentur]

Ashley,

so you think about the <img> element attributes like I proposed?
<img src="myimage_xs.jpg" media-xs="(min-device-width:320px and max-device-width:640px)" media-src-xs="myimage_xs.jpg" media-m="(min-device-width:640px and max-device-width:1024px)" media-src-m="myimage_m.jpg" media-xl="(min-device-width:1024px)" media-src-xl="myimage_xsl.jpg">
(View as gist: https://gist.github.com/1158855)

Or did I misunderstood you?
-Anselm

Am 07.02.2012 um 10:45 schrieb Ashley Sheridan:

> On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 23:15 +0000, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:23:37 -0000, Mathew Marquis <mat at matmarquis.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> I recently published a sum-up of our thinking at A List Apart (  
>>> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-images-how-they-almost-worked-and-what-we-need/  
>>> )—in short, using the <video> markup pattern as the inspiration, with  
>>> the use of media attributes on the <source> elements to determine the  
>>> rendered source, and the inclusion of an <img>--ideally a smaller image,  
>>> to account for the lowest-common-denominator--as a fallback similar to  
>>> the way Flash or an image might be used as a <video> fallback.
>>> 
>> Why not use a media attribute of <object>? That way you should get media  
>> type disambiguation for free.
> 
> 
> The main problem I see with that is that the <object> tag doesn't have
> the same accessibility attributes, so you'd effectively lock out a lot
> of people using browsers that don't understand the context of the tag in
> this case. I think the better way is to add something to the <img> tag
> as you'd still have full backwards compatibility.
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Ash
> http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
> 
>