On Oct 18, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
I just wanted to make sure everyone is clear that this maincontent part
is not part of the HTML specification, and is not a WHATWG specification.
We have previously had miscommunications about this kind of thing, e.g.
with responsive
On Oct 11, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Markus Ernst wrote:
IMHO as an author, the bandwidth use case is not solved in a future
proof manner
It's not solved at all. I didn't attempt to solve it. Before we can solve
it, we need to figure out
On Oct 11, 2012, at 1:10 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Mathew Marquis wrote:
On Oct 11, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Markus Ernst wrote:
IMHO as an author, the bandwidth use case is not solved in a future
proof manner
On Oct 10, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Mark Callow wrote:
On 2012/10/06 7:09, Ian Hickson wrote:
I
?
It's not at all clear to me that the picture proposals are more
readable. It's certainly not an enormous enough difference to be relevant.
Perhaps, given the lack of clarity on this point, we might consult the opinion
of authors.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Mathew Marquis wrote:
Whether it's
On Sep 6, 2012, at 7:26 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:45:41 +0200, Mathew Marquis m...@matmarquis.com
wrote:
I can say for my own part: manipulating strings is far more difficult than
manipulating the value of individual attributes. It’s hard to imagine a
situation
On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
[...]
On Thu, 24 May 2012, Florian Rivoal wrote:
picture
source srcset=normal.jpg 1x, highres.jpg 2x
source media=(max-width:768px) srcset=ipad.jpg 1x, ipad3.jpg 2x
source media=(max-width:320px) srcset=iphone.jpg 1x, iphone4.jpg
2x
On Aug 7, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I do not see much potential for srcset. The result of asking the author
community was overwhelmingly negative, indirection or no indirection.
I'm happy to consider specific feedback, but at the
please PLEASE update the subject
line so it isn't the digest subject line.
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Media queries, viewport dimensions, srcset and picture
(Mathew Marquis)
--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:39
WHATWG,
The Responsive Images Community Group was recently asked to furnish a formal
draft proposal for consideration by the HTML WG. I thought it best to post it
here along with some details, where Ian Hickson has mentioned that he’ll be
considering this issue again within a few days.
More
On May 29, 2012, at 6:49 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
* It has two attributes that could easily be confused as doing the
same job. There's little clear logic as to why they're split, from an
authors viewpoint.
It might be confusing, but there is logic in the splitting:
srcset=. lets
On May 24, 2012, at 3:58 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:18:25 +0200, Scott Jehl sc...@scottjehl.com wrote:
With this proposal, could src be used on a source element if you don't
need the features srcset provides?
Or maybe, would that just be equivalent to srcset with a
On May 23, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
Having said all that, I think srcset=foo.jpg 1x, foo2.jpg 2x is quite
good, because it does indeed provide the browser with a set of images with
different quality, leaving it free to pick the appropriate one.
On the other hand, I think
On May 22, 2012, at 5:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
I am somehow surprised that there are no reactions to this proposal. To me
as a humble author it looks like it would address the main issue of both
Well, if nothing else, I can certainly speak to the Community Group’s
frustration on this subject — and to a lesser extent, the development community
in general.
However, it still looks like the most upsetting implication of his
timeline, namely that the WHATWG is prioritizing implementors
On May 18, 2012, at 5:19 PM, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 20:24:00 +0100, André Luís andreluis...@gmail.com wrote:
Make no mistake; this is not a pride or attachment thing, this is a
knowing the reasons thing. I personally don't think picture answers
things well enough, nor
I don’t think this is the case. The public has largely resigned this to
“`srcset` is happening because the WHATWG said so,” for certain, and that
doesn’t seem entirely false—but I don’t think “hopeless acceptance” is the
situation at present. I’ve been off the grid for a few days, but as
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-almost
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-almost-worked-and-what-we-need/
http://www.netmagazine.com/features/state-responsive-images
Long story
On May 13, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
Connection speed
As an extension of the iPad example above, it would also be
irresponsible to serve the high res image to users that do have a high
pixel density display but are not on a fast internet connection for
whatever reason. So
On May 13, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
bhawkesle...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Mathew Marquis m...@matmarquis.com wrote:
AND they have to update their sites and mediaqueries when we get
something new to optimize for. I don't think they will do
On May 13, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
Syntax used on the wiki:
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_images
places alt on the new element:
picture alt=alt
source …
img
/picture
I think it can be improved in two ways:
- Instead of having
On May 13, 2012, at 7:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/13/12 3:20 PM, Mathew Marquis wrote:
I doubt any UAs will be forced to misinterpret common media queries because
they haven’t been accounted for.
Opera has already been forced to do this. For example, in its
While that information may be available at the time the img tag is parsed, I
don’t believe it will be available at the time of prefetching — I’m happy to
research this further and report back with citations. I’m sure I don’t have to
tell you that “disable prefetching on img tags just in case
I’ve put together a summary of potential use cases addressed by the picture
markup and posted them to the WHATWG wiki, along with a few key implementation
details: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_images
I don’t mind saying that the `img set` markup is inscrutable to the point where
I may
On May 10, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 15:24:28 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
This proposal has a similar issue to image-set() - if the 2x means
twice the resolution (which it should), this will *not work by
default*. If you make a 5
On May 10, 2012, at 8:36 AM, Scott González wrote:
You should look into the previous discussions at
http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/
There's also a prototype using media queries at
https://github.com/scottjehl/picturefill. I realize you specifically said
you think media queries don't
The above is just a my proposal in advancing this discussion, and
until there is no feedback about this from people on the RWD Heaven:
if browsers reported device capabilities in a request header and the
add html-attribute for responsive images threads, and other
developers concerned in
On Feb 9, 2012, at 6:36 AM, Jordan Dobson jordandob...@gmail.com wrote:
Tim,
Very good suggestion. This would allow us to keep our markup clean and
stash these extra references elsewhere in the code as we see fit.
+1
--
Jordan Dobson • Designer / Developer • 425-444-8014 •
On Feb 8, 2012, at 8:38 AM, David Goss wrote:
picture alt=alternative text src=default.jpg
source href=medium.jpg media=min-width:400px /
source href=large.jpg media=min-width:700px /
img alt=alternative text src=default.jpg /
/picture
Becomes this:
img alt=alternative text
On Tuesday, Feb 7, 2012, at 7:35 AM, David Goss wrote:
On 7 February 2012 11:31:15 +0100, Anselm Hannemann wrote:
Am 07.02.2012 um 11:16 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
To me this makes most sense /from an author perspective/ (I make no claims
as to how practical this really is):
picture
Am 25.01.2012 16:39 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
It's also worth noting another use case for this being in mark-up and not
just server-negotiated rescaling of a single image:
Imagine a profile photo on an About page. At large sizes you want to use a
full body shot, at smaller sizes you
I think we need to decide whether markup-based solution is a workaround
forced on us because there was no good solution or whether it is a solution
we should pursue, if implemented properly.
To your first point: I figure we do have solutions already, even if they’re not
spectacular. A
33 matches
Mail list logo
