Re: [webkit-dev] The SrcN responsive images proposal

2013-11-06 Thread Benjamin Poulain
On 11/6/13, 3:24 PM, Yoav Weiss wrote: On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Benjamin Poulain mailto:benja...@webkit.org>> wrote: On 11/6/13, 10:53 AM, John Mellor wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Maciej Stachowiak mailto:m...@apple.com>

[webkit-dev] (no subject)

2013-11-06 Thread Gino Casillas-Morsillo
___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] The SrcN responsive images proposal

2013-11-06 Thread John Mellor
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > (...) > > I know there are explanations for how src-N got to be as complex as it is. > However, the following counterpoints come to mind: > > (a) The complexity is not well-contained; some of it leaks out even if you > want to do somethin

Re: [webkit-dev] The SrcN responsive images proposal

2013-11-06 Thread Yoav Weiss
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Benjamin Poulain wrote: > On 11/6/13, 10:53 AM, John Mellor wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Maciej Stachowiak > > wrote: >> > >> > My initial impression is that it seems a bit overengineered. >> >> I sympathize. The issue of sr

Re: [webkit-dev] The SrcN responsive images proposal

2013-11-06 Thread Yoav Weiss
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > (b) I am dubious of some of the use cases proposed as essential for src-N > that ratchet up the complexity. For example, your case #2 of > viewport-switching > Viewport switching is very common in almost any responsive design. > ,

Re: [webkit-dev] Using protect(this) versus ref()ing in its caller

2013-11-06 Thread Benjamin Poulain
On 11/6/13, 2:01 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: This discusion came up multiple times on Bugzilla so I'm posting it here. When a member function f() of a RefCounted object can end up removing the last ref to the object itself, should we do: void Foo::f() { RefPtr protect(this); } or RefPtr foo

Re: [webkit-dev] The SrcN responsive images proposal

2013-11-06 Thread Benjamin Poulain
On 11/6/13, 10:53 AM, John Mellor wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Maciej Stachowiak mailto:m...@apple.com>> wrote: > > My initial impression is that it seems a bit overengineered. I sympathize. The issue of srcN appearing to be a complex solution to a seemingly simple problem came up a

[webkit-dev] Using protect(this) versus ref()ing in its caller

2013-11-06 Thread Ryosuke Niwa
Hi, This discusion came up multiple times on Bugzilla so I'm posting it here. When a member function f() of a RefCounted object can end up removing the last ref to the object itself, should we do: void Foo::f() { RefPtr protect(this); } or RefPtr foo = rawPointerToFoo; foo->f() in its cal

Re: [webkit-dev] The SrcN responsive images proposal

2013-11-06 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Nov 6, 2013, at 10:53 AM, John Mellor wrote: > On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > > My initial impression is that it seems a bit overengineered. > > I sympathize. The issue of srcN appearing to be a complex solution to a > seemingly simple problem came up again

Re: [webkit-dev] The SrcN responsive images proposal

2013-11-06 Thread John Mellor
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > My initial impression is that it seems a bit overengineered. I sympathize. The issue of srcN appearing to be a complex solution to a seemingly simple problem came up again on IRC chatting to rniwa, so I thought I'd try to explain this

Re: [webkit-dev] The SrcN responsive images proposal

2013-11-06 Thread Dean Jackson
On 5 Nov 2013, at 9:55 am, Timothy Hatcher wrote: > On Nov 5, 2013, at 2:18 AM, John Mellor wrote: > >> > > I prefer this over multiple attributes. It is a syntax that needs little > explanation before you can read it and use it. It also expands the existing > srcset instead of confusing t