Personally I think it's better than either picture or srcset alone.
But I don't think it's good enough even so, it still has problems:
* It's verbose (but less-so than picture).
* It has two attributes that could easily be confused as doing the
same job. There's little clear logic as to why
On 28 May 2012 18:21, Scott Jehl sc...@scottjehl.com wrote:
Matt Wilcox's first two points are fair, though I see them as inconveniences
rather than blockers.
To his third point, however:
I see the suggestion mentioned on occasion that content image sizes and
design breakpoints should be
On 28 May 2012 20:37, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
On 28 May 2012 18:21, Scott Jehl sc...@scottjehl.com wrote:
Matt Wilcox's first two points are fair, though I see them as inconveniences
rather than blockers.
To his third point, however:
I see the suggestion mentioned
Excellent, sorry I was not clear on that; this is looking good!
I would like to re-iterate that this solution is another which puts
design properties into mark-up directly, and just like old picture
and srcset, this means that when it's time to re-design a site an
author is going to have to trawl
On 24 May 2012 09:45, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 10:27 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
Excellent, sorry I was not clear on that; this is looking good!
I would like to re-iterate that this solution is another which puts
design properties into mark-up directly, and just like
I think this is a good step forward, however nless I am
mis-understanding something (entirely possible given how much has been
going on over this recently) there are problems still...
Resolution of an image and a device is not a guarantee of suitability
of an image at a given physical size. This
On 19 May 2012 00:37, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 23:11:45 +0100, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
picture in its current form is unable to support bandwidth-based
negotiation well
By all accounts no solution proposed can do
On 18 May 2012 11:17, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
I think we may be talking past each other, as I don't see how your answers
address the problems I'm trying to highlight.
Indeed, I'm not debating your points - I accept that it isn't
realistically achievable in HTML/CSS :)
All
You have to understand that the picture idea was not the result of
idle thought. We went through a *lot* of thinking to reach that point,
and so it's not actually an attachement to that idea so much as *we
know* that idea inside out, what it does, what it doesn't, and why
it's like that. We had
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 do I think srcset does. Not for general use
cases - but for specific one-off use cases, each has benefits.
Absolutely. And from
On 17 May 2012 11:05, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:11:41 +0100, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
What solution do you have in mind that would let you add a 'tv'
breakpoint site-wide for all images that have been prepared for it, without
need
Cheers for that feedback Andy - it is indeed a complicated issue with
much more nuance than I think many people (myself included) would have
expected. I still think there's a technical solution there, but as you
say - it's making that solution reliable enough to be worth it. The
problem really is
That particular solution is, to my mind, the most flexible and useful
implementation I've seen, because it's really about breakpoint
management and abstraction - which is what all responsive elements
need in order to work together well and be future-friendly.
It does, no doubt, have some
WHATWG does not exist to be a closed society.
(Is this a joke? This is probably the most open and approachable spec
development community in existance today.)
This is probably the best square wheel there is today does not make
it a good wheel, even if it's better than all the other square
On 17 May 2012 16:07, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:18 AM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
FWIW I think that forming community groups that are limited in scope to
gathering and distilling the relevant use cases could be a functional way of
working.
On 17 May 2012 17:00, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@chromium.org wrote:
As a UA implementor, this seem to me to be purely a success story
for the single reason that it drew so much developer participation.
Regardless of what makes it into the spec, the worst possible outcome
would be if the
On 17 May 2012 18:49, Rafael Weinstein rafa...@chromium.org wrote:
It's easy to see how the experience you describe below would be
frustrating. FWIW, I routinely feel frustration at seemingly wasted
time.
Unfortunately, it's inescapable that reaching consensus can be
exhausting, especially
I also agree with Tab and Jeremy on this one - that makes a lot more
sense to me and removes any ambiguity without being overly verbose.
I asked:
Related question: do we still want to keep this unit-less i.e. ditch the
px from the examples above? Or, if we're going to use this CSS-like syntax
On 17 May 2012 19:15, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
A few humble thoughts
-Have the CG recruit an experienced implementor or editor to
participate more or less from the beginning. This may short
As far as I'm aware SVG does not tackle the primary type of image an
img element diaplsys - photographic, non-vector images. SVG is not
applicable for enough uses.
-Matt
On 16 May 2012 07:17, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Aldrik Dunbar
Am i right in believing that the srcset attribute are limited to
pixels? A unit that's dying out in all responsive designs? Is it
extensible to em, % etc? Because that's what's used.
On 16 May 2012 08:39, Chris Heilmann code...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/05/2012 00:23, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
On
So wrap an image in SVG? I don't see this as being very clean.
On 16 May 2012 10:49, Aldrik Dunbar ald...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I'm aware SVG does not tackle the primary type of image an
img element diaplsys - photographic, non-vector images.
SVG has a number of ways to include raster
Chalk me up as another making that mistake. Properties on elements
usually describe a property of the element. Not a property of
something else (like the viewport).
I'm happier than I was about srcset - but why does the spec assume
pixels? Or does it?
Use case: design breakpoints can and often
breakpoints, and that would mean having
to revisit and edit every image that's had srcset applied - unless I
am missing something (which given the last day or two, I may well be).
-Matt
On 16 May 2012 13:55, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
Chalk me up as another making that mistake
. Anything baking
response points directly into an element will be hell to work with in
any re-design.
-Matt
On 16 May 2012 13:58, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
Also, srcset does not abstract the control points away from the image
itself. I have already been over why this is a problem
complain when
replies are in-line in the style you request, other people complain
unless the whole thread is included verbatim in any reply. What's the
actual WHATWG proscribed format for conducting conversations in email
format?
Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
If there was a way to do
Cheers :)
On 16 May 2012 15:05, Mike Taylor mi...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:40:46 -0500, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
What's the actual WHATWG proscribed format for conducting conversations in
email
format?
See http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Should_I_top
I kinda like the
syntax in the spec draft, it's short and sweet. And obvious when you
know.
Everything is obvious when you know. The challenge is making it
obvious when you don't. Which is why using familiar patters is good.
Which is why picture had a strong advantage in that regard.
People
First off I know that a number of people say this is not possible. I
am not wanting to argue this because I don't have the knowledge to
argue it - but I do want to understand why, and currently I do not.
Please also remember that I can only see this from an authors
perspective as I'm ignorant of
On 16 May 2012 19:47, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
Also, srcset does not abstract the control points away from the image
itself. I have already been over why this is a problem and
future-unfriendly
Ok, so really it's an efficiency of authoring problem; before I just
didn't get how it'd be any different to a viewport width from the
perspective of an author.
That said, when coupled with viewport responses... yeah, that could
get complicated to author. Essentially each bandwidth bracket would
On 16 May 2012 20:04, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
On 16 May 2012 19:47, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote
On 16 May 2012 20:10, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
First off I know that a number of people say this is not possible. I
am not wanting to argue this because I don't have the knowledge to
argue it - but I do want to understand why
On 16 May 2012 20:12, Jacob Mather jmat...@itsmajax.com wrote:
Maybe this is the better question:
Why does the pre-loader matter so much?
Basing the selected image off of browser width is inherently
backwards. The content should be informed by the layout, not by the
browser.
I do agree
@Tab - yes I do remember, sorry. I'm being a bloody idiot.
The solution I've seen proposed[1] only aliases media query content, and
works only on a per-page basis, so it doesn't allow automatic addition of a
new image size site-wide, since you have to insert new source into every
picture anyway.
That is not true. With that particular solution you
at 9:31 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
All good points, thanks. Sorry I'd missed you saying style rather
than link/, my bad!
I had assumed that we would be able to take the logic for resolving
media query applicability directly from that in CSS, which is why I
have
, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On 24 January 2012 23:26, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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
a particular CSS file.
If it works for authors using CSS, why should it not also work for
setting image paths?
-Matt
On 15 May 2012 10:57, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
Please, have you taken a look
indirect - to the extent of being in a different
file entirely.
-Matt
On 15 May 2012 11:13, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
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
Hudson (Website Developer - www.ShaneHudson.net)
07794746595
@ShaneHudson / +Shane Hudson
On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 11:22, 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
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 ja...@cloudfour.com wrote:
On May 15, 2012,
flawed. It doesn't do what we need, and never can because
srcset is based on the assumptin that a UA can somehow pick an
appropriate resource to load - when it can't possibly know about the
authors use of that resource at that time.
-Matt
On 15 May 2012 19:19, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
Hi all,
have any of you seen this proposal for an alternative solution to the problem?
http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/05/13/an-alternative-proposition-to-and-srcset-with-wider-scope/
I like the general idea and from an author perspective this seems
great; but I know nothing of the
14, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
have any of you seen this proposal for an alternative solution to the
problem?
http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/05/13/an-alternative-proposition-to-and-srcset-with-wider-scope/
I like the general idea and from
presumed that should multiple cases match the browser would
simply uses the last matching one. There's already a polyfil in JS
that does exactly that: http://jsbin.com/3/ecifaf/latest/
On 14 May 2012 15:50, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Matthew
. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Please also forgive me not being too
technically aware of things at a browser level; so I'm not really sure
how valid my feedback can be:
The URI thing is actually
On 6 February 2012 19:24, Irakli Nadareishvili ira...@gmail.com wrote:
Boris,
if you don't mind me saying it, I am afraid you may be missing the point of
this request. In Responsive Web Design, device capabilities are used in a
high-level fashion to determine a class of the device:
+1 to everything Jason Grigsby just said.
If not here, where? If not with you, with who? We've been doing this
publicly for months and months...
.
To make that happen, it seems necessary to convince people that an actual
issue exists and to discuss potential solutions somewhere. So an honest and
humble question, if that doesn’t happen here, where does it happen?
-Jason
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
.
-Charles
On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
Scripting on the client side for the purposes of content negotiation
*does
not work*
Please, understand this. Because browsers pre-fetch as soon as a node is
created there can be no client-side solution
On 7 February 2012 00:12, Jason Grigsby ja...@cloudfour.com wrote:
I agree that this is a problem. I’ve spent far too much time trying to
find solutions for images in responsive designs and none that I reviewed
work. (research at http://cloudfour.com/responsive-imgs-part-2).
Seconded, my
@Mathew Marquis - that was a good article, I was so pleased to see the
thinking behind it getting some attention at last! I've been trying to push
this idea since launching adaptive-images.com , and a number of people have
come up with the same client-side quasi-solution independently. Bruce
?
On 7 February 2012 10:31, Anselm Hannemann ans...@novolo.de wrote:
Am 07.02.2012 um 11:16 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
2012/2/7 Anselm Hannemann – Novolo Designagentur ans...@novolo.de
Ashley,
so you think about the img element attributes like I proposed?
img src=myimage_xs.jpg media-xs=(min
-images-how-they-almost-worked-and-what-we-need/P40/#41
Am 07.02.2012 um 11:34 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
Can you clarify why the image would be loaded twice?
Can we not, as part of the logic for the picture element, say that img
is ignored in supporting browsers? Thus, never called
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
src href=small.jpg alt=a headshot of Bob Flemming
media=min-width:320
PS: I am a strong believer that we need both a server-side and client-side
solution to this problem of adaptive media. They solve different aspects of
what seem superficially the same things :)
viable capabilities which is
the cause of a potential veto of this.
:)
On 7 February 2012 13:34, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
Also, as indicated, with SPDY this is much much less of a problem than
for HTTP
over-riding in that it forces
the alt to be applicable to all sources which then strengthens the vibe
that the images, although different, should have the same semantics.
On 7 February 2012 14:59, David Goss dvdg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 February 2012 14:00, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
2012 16:46, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:13:03 +0100, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
Personally, I think the issue of adapting resources to client
capabilities is here to stay.
For sure, although the mechanisms might evolve.
Devices
Thanks for the feedback :)
I've replied inline, but please be aware that I don't have a browser-vendor
hat to put on so some of my questions may well be a bit naive (for which I
apologise in advance)
On 7 February 2012 17:11, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/7/12 9:13 AM, Matthew
to see my:
screen size
connection speed
…
On 7 February 2012 22:45, Mike Taylor mi...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:32:23 -0600, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
, will cause their users to get more broken pages (which is what happens
in many cases with browser sniffing
Thanks again, you make some good points :)
More responses inline...
On 7 February 2012 17:59, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/7/12 12:32 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
This is a case of browser vendors (or at least me with my browser
implementor had on) thinking that sending
On 7 Feb 2012, at 20:19, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 2/7/12 2:52 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Reporting more information about the user's hardware and software to
the server allows better fingerprinting and hence tracking. See
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/__2010/01/primer-information
On 7 February 2012 20:05, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
n...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com schrieb am Tue, 7 Feb 2012
19:38:31 +:
Can we not turn this into an option in the same way browsers handle
requests to get the users location? With configuration too
Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 2/7/2012 11:52 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On 7 February 2012 17:59, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/7/12 12:32 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
In what circumstances might this cause breakages?
Whenever the server developer makes dumb assumptions. Which
to pay for it.
On 7 February 2012 21:19, Charles Pritchard ch...@jumis.com wrote:
On 2/7/2012 1:14 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Also, I am writing this on a laptop via a throttled mobile connection.
It'd be nice if sites had the capability to adapt to that throttle
then wouldn't
content from 2) over SPDY without another
request (because SPDY can).
This way there are no additional overheads unless the server has requested
them specifically.
-Matt
On 6 February 2012 15:38, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:50:03 +0100, Matthew Wilcox
m
assets just because you've increased the window
size.
On 6 February 2012 16:00, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 2/6/12 10:52 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
1) client asks for spdy://website.com
2) server responds with content and adds a request bandwidth device
screen size header
Scripting on the client side for the purposes of content negotiation *does
not work*
Please, understand this. Because browsers pre-fetch as soon as a node is
created there can be no client-side solution to this issue with the current
HTML/JS specifications and browser behaviour. The image
On 2/6/12 1:55 PM, Irakli Nadareishvili wrote:
Many thanks to everybody who has responded and for a lively and a
productive discussion!
Quick clarification: the proposal is to include *device* capabilities in
the HTTP headers, so when we say screen width and height we mean device
screen width
On 6 Feb 2012, at 19:19, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:58:00 -, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu
wrote:
Again, it's not constant in the terms that the page sees, which are CSS
pixels, not device pixels.
We're discussing HTTP here, so the content might just as well be
What's wrong with using a class on the article to identify the author
stylistically? It's already identified semantically by having their name in
the article itself, right (presumably in a footer too)?
On 26 January 2012 13:57, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012
this the information will have been pulled through a CMS,
so it's trivial to have a class appended to the article. When would you
want this as pure HTML that's not been parsed by some form of CMS?
On 26 January 2012 21:43, Matthew Wilcox elven...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 Jan 2012, at 20:47, Bjartur Thorlacius
Please see responses inline:
On 24 January 2012 23:26, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch 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.
There's
Ugh, my Gmail keeps sending mail from the wrong address, let me try again:
...
In fact, please just read the blog post Bruce Lawson (Opera Software)
made summarising the last few months of effort on this, and his proposal
for a mark-up level solution (which I'm in broad support of, though there
:
Am 25.01.2012 15:07 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
In fact, please just read the blog post Bruce Lawson (Opera Software)
made summarising the last few months of effort on this, and his proposal
for a mark-up level solution (which I'm in broad support of, though there
are a lot of knotty issues
77 matches
Mail list logo
