[whatwg] <picture> / <img srcset> not needed
aldrik at gmail.com
Wed May 16 15:44:13 PDT 2012
> It's still verbose even if you shift the verbosity into a separate
> file; the shifting only matters if you're going to be reusing the
> image many times. I'm not certain that's the case here - if the same
> image is being used over and over again, it's probably a decorative
> image, not a content image, and so belongs in CSS.
I hadn't thought much about the reuse case which is a plus. For example
image hosters could provide a single url which could seamlessly be
embedded on forums and blogs, linked to on twitter, etc and all without
the users ever having to worry about image size/dpi.
> >> and doesn't do any kind of negotiation resolution.
> > I'm sorry, not sure what you mean.
> It's what the "Nx" component of the @srcset syntax is for - you can
> tell the browser about multiple resolutions of the same image, and the
> browser decides which one to request. (See my blog post at
> <http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4Hv0> for why this sort of thing is more
> difficult than you might think.)
Yep, Odin also kindly pointed me towards your blog.
I don't really see how srcset makes implementing a "low
bandwidth/resolution mode" much easier. Such a mode would lower the CSS
resolution and the appropriate file gets requested. This could be done
selectively for each SVG, starting at default dpi and upon a request of
a non cached resource while in low-mode quit and reprocess the media
queries with the lower resolution.
Of course if someone comes up with a progressively loaded image format
this could be handled much more elegantly.
More information about the whatwg