On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:52:24 +0200, André Luís <andreluis...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[...] i still prefer the way I suggested earlier, to
make <img> work like the other media tags: <video> <audio>, with child
<source> elements that could have either a resolution="96" (per
proposal of Roger) attribute or a media query...
We cannot have child elements for <img>. Content (legacy and new)
constraints how <img> is and will be parsed.
Anyway, is it still time to have this conversation? Will additions to
the spec be considered?
Yes, though extensions to the <meta> element can be done independently
from the specification. As a standalone specification.
Since this Retina (high res screens) business is very new, there isn't
much real-world usage to harvest proof of... but is there a process or
a set of steps a proposal must go through?
There is a somewhat informal process, yes:
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F
Personally I do not think detailed control is needed at all. It requires
way too much configuration and hassle for little benefit. What Dave Hyatt
outlined in http://webkit.org/blog/55/high-dpi-web-sites/ for the img
element is good enough. I.e. always load the high resolution version and
scale it down for "lesser" displays using height/width. Sure, some more
bandwidth is used, but that is not a big deal, especially if you consider
that the higher resolution version goes to the device with less bandwidth.
So if bandwidth was a concern we would not be having this discussion.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
