[whatwg] Defaulting new image solution to 192dpi

Andy Davies dajdavies at gmail.com
Thu May 17 06:42:19 PDT 2012

On 17 May 2012 14:19, Kornel Lesiński <kornel at geekhood.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 13:47:12 +0100, Andy Davies <dajdavies at gmail.com> wrote:
>> srcset can be used to offer alternatives for higher or lower DPI,
>> and/or larger or smaller viewports so I'm still not convinced that an
>> assumption that somehow it should assume that the srcset images are 2x
>> scale by default really helps.
>> Much of the usage I've seen for responsive images so far has
>> concentrated on providing images that change with viewport size rather
>> than DPI.
> Let me reiterate: it doesn't matter. Those are *separate* issues.
> "Responsive image" is a bad term as it conflates two distinct problems
> (screen density adaptation and physical screen size adaptation) into one.
> It's not either-or choice. Both have valid use-cases.
> Support for high DPI displays is an absolute necessity.
> Don't look at current or past. Think how web development is going to look
> like in 5, 10 or 20 years.
> There will be no low-res displays in the future. Everybody is going to have
> "Retina" displays and everybody will hate that <img> or <picture> inserts
> crappy pixelated images.
> Try browsing the web on the new iPad today. That's how every display is
> going to look like in 10, maybe 20 years. Then DPI negotiation will not be
> an option, it'll be absolute requirement for *every* *single* image.
> HTML5 is designed for the next 50-100 years.

The last line is exactly why baking in an assumption on the defaults
isn't the right way to go.

I don't disagree that higher DPI resolutions will be come the norm but
then what are we going to do about lower DPI devices, serve them a
higher DPI than needed image and let them work it out rather than
serve them appropriate images?

The Zombie Apocalypse is coming there will be plenty of lower DPI
screens around for a long time...



More information about the whatwg mailing list