On May 15, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Chris Heilmann wrote:
> I also wonder what we do with videos? Surely they have the same issues and
> there is no proposal for changing the syntax there.
With current codecs, and given human perception of visual images, videos can be
decoded at multiple resolutions
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Aldrik Dunbar wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Adding a new *presentational* attribute/element for adaptive/responsive
> images makes no sense and is not required. We already have a flexible
> image format that can accomplish this — SVG, e.g.:
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2000
The good thing on the picture element is that we have the possibility to serve
other image-crops and with that the meaning could change so we could update the
alt-attribute in the tag for every source-element.
I do know this is a very special case but valid: An image displayed for a
desktop whi
You might remember about my proposal 9 months ago. If not you can see it here:
https://gist.github.com/1158855
http://cdn.url.com/img/myimage_xs.jpg";
media-xs="(min-device-width:320px and max-device-width:640px)"
media-xs-src="http://cdn.url.com/img/myimage_xs.jpg";
m
I've had intermittent issues with this as well, and completely agree that
the even should happen after the transition is done. Barring that, it would
be useful if the elements on the page reported their post-transition sizes
and positions in the even callback.
In the same vein, I'd also like to po
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer skreiv Wed, 16 May 2012 00:57:48
> +0200
>
>>> Media queries come from the client side. They allow the author of a web
>>> page to tell exactly how she want to lay out her design based on the
>>> different queries. The br
On 2012-05-15, at 7:23 PM, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:17:54 +0100, Chris Heilmann wrote:
>
>> The fetish for brevity is something I never understood. More understandable
>> code is faster to write than cryptic short code.
>
> There is significant difference in verbosity f
Hi there,
Adding a new *presentational* attribute/element for adaptive/responsive
images makes no sense and is not required. We already have a flexible
image format that can accomplish this — SVG, e.g.:
http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"; viewBox="0 0 900 1135">
A painting by Edvard Munch, com
On 5/15/12 7:33 PM, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
In fact, I'd keep @media, because it serves some cases very well (I see
dpi/bandwidth optimisation as a problem orthogonal to layout adaptation:
http://geekhood.net/MediaQuery-vs-PerfQuery.png)
@media on video source is terrible for layout adaptation:
Hi,
I think that the "fullscreenchange" even dispatch should be specified to
be dispatched once the animation to transition to/from fullscreen has
finished.
The problem is that at least two of the platforms we're supporting have
non-instantaneous transitions from windowed to fullscreen mode.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jason Grigsby wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> I suspect this is simply confusion about the proposal - @srcset
>> handles the "art-directed" case same as , just with a
>> somewhat more compact microsyntax rather than using MQs dire
On May 15, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> I suspect this is simply confusion about the proposal - @srcset
> handles the "art-directed" case same as , just with a
> somewhat more compact microsyntax rather than using MQs directly. (On
> the plus side, the slightly-special processing of
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:25:23 +0100, Matthew Wilcox
> wrote:
>
>> I think there's a fundamental mis-match in the mental model of how
>> authors work and what they want. I'm pretty sure we're all shooting
>> for the same "be more efficient"
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Jeremy Keith wrote:
> Odin wrote:
>> 1. How do we enable authors so that they can display different images under
>> different conditions based on art direction?
>
>> 2. Enabling authors to provide different resolutions of images based on a
>> variety of condition
On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:25:23 +0100, Matthew Wilcox
wrote:
I think there's a fundamental mis-match in the mental model of how
authors work and what they want. I'm pretty sure we're all shooting
for the same "be more efficient" goal, but I think that here on the
mailing list that's being approa
On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:57:48 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
Media queries come from the client side. They allow the author of a web
page to tell exactly how she want to lay out her design based on the
different queries. The browser *HAS* to follow these queries. And also,
I don't think (please
Odin wrote:
> It's heavily optimized for the usecase that will happen most often: for
> "retina" type displays:
>
>
Okay. This is also what Ted said about the srcset proposal and it makes a lot
of sense for that use case.
But it seems far less suited to the use-case of "art-directed" image
On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:17:54 +0100, Chris Heilmann
wrote:
The fetish for brevity is something I never understood. More
understandable code is faster to write than cryptic short code.
There is significant difference in verbosity for a *very common case* of
serving images for high-dpi ("Re
Silvia Pfeiffer skreiv Wed, 16 May 2012
00:57:48 +0200
Media queries come from the client side. They allow the author of a web
page to tell exactly how she want to lay out her design based on the
different queries. The browser *HAS* to follow these queries. And also,
I don't think (please cor
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
> Andy Davies wrote:
>>
>> Looking at the srcset proposal it appears to be recreating aspects of
>> media-queries in a terse less obvious form...
>>
>> We've already got media queries so surelt we should be using them to
>> determine which
Andy Davies wrote:
Looking at the srcset proposal it appears to be recreating aspects of
media-queries in a terse less obvious form...
We've already got media queries so surelt we should be using them to
determine which image should be used and if media-queries don't have
features we need then
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Chris Heilmann wrote:
> I also wonder what we do with videos? Surely they have the same issues and
> there is no proposal for changing the syntax there. I do not like the syntax
> of this. Yes it is more terse but it smacks of the horrible syntax of
> window.open p
On 15/05/2012 23:11, Anselm Hannemann Web Development wrote:
Tab, maybe you think this is a good type to write the syntax but the majority
of normal web developers are used to use common HTML syntax. This is why we
proposed the picture element and normal attributes using media queries.
Of cours
Am 16.05.2012 um 00:06 schrieb Chris Heilmann:
> On 15/05/2012 22:46, Bruce Lawson wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 22:18:51 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr.
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Andy Davies wrote:
Looking at the srcset proposal it appears to be recreating aspects of
m
Tab, maybe you think this is a good type to write the syntax but the majority
of normal web developers are used to use common HTML syntax. This is why we
proposed the picture element and normal attributes using media queries.
Of course this means we have lot more to write but at least this is int
On 15/05/2012 22:46, Bruce Lawson wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 22:18:51 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Andy Davies
wrote:
Looking at the srcset proposal it appears to be recreating aspects of
media-queries in a terse less obvious form...
We've already got med
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Importantly, I think I'd like to be able to use either min or max, but
>> @srcset's microsyntax only talks about min sizes. (I got it wrong in
>> my previous email.)
>
> Well, it
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Importantly, I think I'd like to be able to use either min or max, but
> @srcset's microsyntax only talks about min sizes. (I got it wrong in
> my previous email.)
Well, it's not a media query. It *describes* the size of the image. A
media
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Bruce Lawson wrote:
> 1) the 600w 200h bit replicates the functionality of the familiar Media
> Queries syntax but in a new unfamiliar microsyntax which many have argued is
> ugly, unintuitive and prone to error
> (http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/05/11/res
On Tue, 15 May 2012 22:18:51 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr.
wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Andy Davies wrote:
Looking at the srcset proposal it appears to be recreating aspects of
media-queries in a terse less obvious form...
We've already got media queries so surelt we should be using
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Andy Davies wrote:
> Looking at the srcset proposal it appears to be recreating aspects of
> media-queries in a terse less obvious form...
>
> srcset="face-600-200 at 1.jpeg 600w 200h 1x,
> face-600-200 at 2.jpeg 600w 200h 2x,
>
Looking at the srcset proposal it appears to be recreating aspects of
media-queries in a terse less obvious form...
We've already got media queries so surelt we should be using them to
determine which image should be used and if media-queries don't have
features we need then we should be exte
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >> For two, I'm not sure that it's particularly obvious that when you say
> >> "2x", you should make sure your image was saved as 196dpi. You have
> >> to already know what the default resolution is.
> >
> > You don't have to. The resoluti
On May 15, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 May 2012, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> 3.125x isn't particularly difficult to specify.
>
> I actually didn't even realize that 300dpi is 3.125 times 96dpi.
>
> Regardless, I
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Um, the fact of the matter is we don't want to ensure they have the
> same ratio. It is exactly why we want to swap images sometimes - the
> aspect ratio no longer fits the design being applied at the given
> breakpoint.
I think you misunde
I think there's a fundamental mis-match in the mental model of how
authors work and what they want. I'm pretty sure we're all shooting
for the same "be more efficient" goal, but I think that here on the
mailing list that's being approached from an angle that has not
considered how authors actually
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> Now I'm not sure what to do about the bandwidth one. It's very hard for a
> user agent to estimate its bandwidth availability -- it depends on the
> server, and the network location of the server, almost as much as on the
> location of the cli
Um, the fact of the matter is we don't want to ensure they have the
same ratio. It is exactly why we want to swap images sometimes - the
aspect ratio no longer fits the design being applied at the given
breakpoint.
On 15 May 2012 18:48, Jason Grigsby wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Tab At
On May 15, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Jason Grigsby wrote:
>> Are you saying that all of the image source listed in srcset would have the
>> same aspect ratio? In the example Hixie provided, face-icon.png is a
>> different ratio.
>>
>> Another wa
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Jason Grigsby wrote:
> Are you saying that all of the image source listed in srcset would have the
> same aspect ratio? In the example Hixie provided, face-icon.png is a
> different ratio.
>
> Another way to read this could be that you’re fine so long as your sou
On May 15, 2012, at 7:58 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Jason Grigsby wrote:
>> On May 15, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
* Example 2: On the Nokia Browser site where it describes the Meego
browser, the Nokia Lumia is show horizontally on wide scree
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> That all said, I don't like the "2x" notation. It's declaring "this
>> image's resolution is twice that of a normal image". This has two
>> problems. For one, we already have a unit that means
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Jason Grigsby wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> * Example 2: On the Nokia Browser site where it describes the Meego
>>> browser, the Nokia Lumia is show horizontally on wide screens. As the
>>> screen narrows, the Nokia Lumia is then sho
On May 15, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> * Example 2: On the Nokia Browser site where it describes the Meego
>> browser, the Nokia Lumia is show horizontally on wide screens. As the
>> screen narrows, the Nokia Lumia is then shown vertically and cropped.
>> Bryan and Stephanie Rieger
On May 14, 2012, at 8:29 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
> (12/05/15 7:17), Mathew Marquis wrote:
>> It’s worth noting that a practical polyfill may not be possible when using
>> `img set`, for reasons detailed at length elsewhere:
>> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-images-how-they-
That's one of the major advantages of Adaptive Images (the PHP/JS
solution) and what people most like about it when they give me
feedback - it's all automatic with no custom HTML and it does all
image generation itself.
Yes, the vast majority of people who are going to put images into
websites are
I do not see much potential for srcset. The result of asking the
author community was overwhelmingly negative, indirection or no
indirection.
To be clear, I don't see how indirection of this level can be an
issue, under those terms anything you write in CSS to effect a HTML
element is already "ind
Constraints on where assets are placed and named? I do not follow your
reasoning here: You put them in the folder that's used for that design
breakpoint:
/anything/{whatever}/this/can/be/anything.jpg
I've seen no objections about that aspect in the Community Group
thread, where a number of author
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Please, have you taken a look at the latest idea?
>
> http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/05/13/an-alternative-proposition-to-and-srcset-with-wider-scope/
It was quoted and replied to in the email you just replied to.
It has many pro
Please, have you taken a look at the latest idea?
http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/05/13/an-alternative-proposition-to-and-srcset-with-wider-scope/
It solves many issues:
1) works with pre-fetch
2) is not verbose
3) is backward compatible with current browsers
4) is aimed for future-proo
We're getting some good feedback over on the Community Group about
this, people seem to like it.
I'm still asking a few people to try and find holes in the proposal
though, reasons why it wouldn't work.
-Matt
On 14 May 2012 17:59, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Matthew
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On 24 January 2012 23:26, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, Anselm Hannemann - Novolo Designagentur wrote:
> > >
> > > As we now have the possibility of creating fluid and responsive
> > > layouts in several ways we have a problem with images
52 matches
Mail list logo