[whatwg] <imgset> responsive imgs proposition (Re: The src-N proposal)

[Laurent Perez]

Hi

I was at the Paris RICG meetup in Paris, I understand the complexity of the
responsive requirements.
I'd like to propose the following pseudocode, building upon CSS4 range
media queries.

@media (3dppx > resolution >= 2dppx),  (min-width: 320px) {
.artdirection {
background-image:url(high.png);
 background-position: center;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
min-width: 100%;
 }
}

<img src="" class="artdirection"/>

What do you think ?

laurent



On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
> > I see. It seems like it would be simpler to just define content on a
> real element to have the existing WK/Blink behavior without saying
> "replaced". It is not obvious why ignoring the element size is a useful
> default behavior. But I suppose that discussion is out of scope here and
> would better be discussed in a CSS-relevant forum.
>
> Yeah, feel free to raise it in www-style if you're interested.
> Otherwise, fantasai and/or I will take care of it in due time, when we
> have time for it.
>
> > For the sake of curiosity: is there any reasonably accurate current
> draft that describes what 'content' is supposed to do on a non-pseudo
> element?
>
> Nope.
>
> > The most recent reference I could find is <
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-content/> but that hasn't been updated in a
> while. It says "If the computed value of the part of the 'content' property
> that ends up being used is a single URI, then the element or pseudo-element
> is a replaced element. The box model defines different rules for the layout
> of replaced elements than normal elements. Replaced elements do not have
> '::before' and '::after' pseudo-elements; the 'content' property in the
> case of replaced content replaces the entire contents of the element's
> box." But I can't tell if that matches what you say or is the opposite.
>
> Right, Content is out-of-date and hasn't been sanity checked.  Don't
> let the recent-ish date fool you; it's just a stripped-down version of
> the older 2003 draft, and the remaining parts haven't been seriously
> gone over yet.
>
> ~TJ
>



-- 
http://laurentperez.fr
J2EE tips and best practices