[whatwg] Implementation complexity with elements vs an attribute (responsive images)
Kornel Lesiński
kornel at geekhood.net
Sun May 13 15:17:40 PDT 2012
On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:00:10 +0100, Bjartur Thorlacius
<svartman95 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got a hunch I'm over-thinking this, but might
> bandwidth-constrained users not prefer miniatures instead of huge
> pixelated images?
Perhaps sometimes, but support for this would tie layout and bandwidth
together, and that complicates things. It's easier for authors if images
don't unexpectedly change displayed size.
I think we can assume that authors won't provide image in resolution that
is too low to be useful, so huge pixelation may not be a problem.
Authors can decrease image filesize not only by decreasing pixel size, but
also by using lossy image compression (lower JPEG quality, less colors in
PNG/GIF files).
For pure bandwidth optimisation on 100dpi displays (rather than avoiding
sending too large 200dpi images to users with 100dpi displays) an explicit
filesize information may be the solution:
<img srcset="q95percent.jpg size=100KB, q30percent.jpg size=20KB">
then UA can easily make decision how much bandwidth it can use (e.g. aim
to download any page in 5 seconds, so try to get image sizes to add up to
less than 5*network B/s).
--
regards, Kornel Lesiński
More information about the whatwg
mailing list