[whatwg] Implementation complexity with elements vs an attribute (responsive images)
kornel at geekhood.net
Sun May 13 12:31:40 PDT 2012
On Sun, 13 May 2012 01:33:25 +0100, Mathew Marquis <mat at matmarquis.com>
> I worry that, when faced with this markup, developers will simply opt to
> serve the largest possible image in a src. In fairness, that approach
> "works" with far less headache.
In the long term that may be a very sensible approach. Selection of 1x/2x
images is relevant only as long as we have 100dpi screens and slow
connections, and both will disappear over time.
Perhaps we should think about making syntax for 200dpi+ images with
intrinsic dimensions easy?
Selection between images for different screen sizes/orientations isn't a
problem that will go away any time soon, so I think <picture> is a good
idea regardless of solution for DPI/bandwidth problem.
As long as HTML claims to be independent of CSS there is no solution for
that (i.e authors shouldn't be adding multiple <img> and showing one of
them with CSS).
How about that:
<source src="narrow_low-quality" srcset="narrow_hi-quality 2x"
<source src="wide_low-quality" srcset="wide_hi-quality 2x">
<img src="fallback" alt="alt">
Instead of srcset it could be src2x or another attribute that specifies
image for higher screen density and/or bandwidth. The point is that
media="" would allow author to choose image version adapted to page
layout, and another mechanism connected to <source> would allow UA to
choose image resolution.
regards, Kornel Lesiński
More information about the whatwg