(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-worked-and-what-we-need/ > http://www.netmagazine.com/features/state-responsive-images > > Long story short: attempting to write a polyfill for `img set` leaves us in > the exact situation we were in while trying to solve the issue of responsive > images strictly on the front-end. We would be saddling users with a redundant > download—first for the original src, then for the appropriately-sized source > if needed. > > Where the new element would be all but ignored by existing browsers, > efficient polyfills become possible. In fact, two `picture` polyfills exist > today: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_images#Functional_Polyfills
Sorry but I don't understand why <noscript> as used around <img> by these polyfills listed can't be used along <img srcset>. If your point is that some Web developers will not cater for NoScript users and chose to include <img> in <picture>, I think those authors can use <img srcset> without @src too (if I understand correctly). Cheers, Kenny