[whatwg] The src-N proposal

Qebui Nehebkau qebui.nehebkau+whatwg at gmail.com
Tue Nov 19 13:13:53 PST 2013

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Bruno Racineux <bruno at hexanet.net> wrote:
> If I can give two top of my head analogies. With that pattern of thinking,
> something like the rather complex to understand CSS flexbox wouldn't
> exist. Or inline javacript would be allowed for fear of a dumb mistake by
> an amateur.
> I think, this kind of false misdirected fears, are actually overemphasized
> concerns by some here. If we worry about 'stupid' so much that it hinders
> progress. It could set priorities backwards.

I think there's a qualitative difference between "this particular
thing is more complex than necessary in a way that virtually
guarantees it will be misused" and "no even slightly complicated
things should ever be allowed anywhere ever". *Not* worrying too much
about "stupid" doesn't mean that we have to do everything the hard
way, either.

> Perhaps, a reason I come to this conclusion, is that: An advantage with
> the Worpdress img-name-{width}x{height}.jpg syntax is that you don't need
> any tokens at all.  As long as the With and Height are declared inline,
> you can figure out the ratio, and match that with the list of available
> widths to get the right image.

Sure, but, like I said, that only works as far as you stick to the
rigid pattern for image names. As soon as you want to break the
pattern, or - heaven forfend! - *extend* it, it becomes a serious
liability, to say the least.

> Which makes src-N or srcset ever more so unnecessary for that particular
> naming convention, that I'd rather almost have a few lines of inline
> javascript do it in the head, for the Wordpress platform.

That's great, for the Wordpress platform. Everyone else might still
want responsive images that don't require them to emulate Wordpress.

More information about the whatwg mailing list