[whatwg] <picture> / <img srcset> not needed

[Tab Atkins Jr.]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Aldrik Dunbar <aldrik at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Adding a new *presentational* attribute/element for adaptive/responsive
> images makes no sense and is not required. We already have a flexible
> image format that can accomplish this — SVG, e.g.:
>
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 900 1135">
>        <desc>A painting by Edvard Munch, commonly known as "the scream".</desc>
>        <style type="text/css" ><![CDATA[
>                svg { background-size: 100% 100%; }
>                @media (min-width:477px) {
>                        svg { background-image: url("https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg"); }
>                }
>                @media (max-width:476px) {
>                        svg { background-image: url("https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg/476px-The_Scream.jpg"); }
>                }
>        ]]></style>
> </svg>

This is *way* more verbose than either <picture> or <img srcset>,
doesn't interact with preloading, and doesn't do any kind of
negotiation resolution.  There are good reasons for the designs that
have been discussed so far.

~TJ