On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:25:23 +0100, Matthew Wilcox
<m...@matthewwilcox.com> 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 approached from an angle that has not
considered how authors actually want to do this.
We work with designs that re-arrange content and sometimes call for
different images of the same semantic meaning. That is *not* the same
use case as simply sending a different version of the same image.
Srcset only addresses that one type of use, and that is why authors
feel it's 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.
There's very good article about the two cases:
http://blog.cloudfour.com/a-framework-for-discussing-responsive-images-solutions/
srcset is not very good for "art-directed" case, while <picture> is
perfect for it.
<picture> is not very good for resolution/bandwidth optimisation, while
srcset is perfect for it.
I think those are simply two different problems that just happen to be
called "adaptive images". We should recognized that they're separate and
design separate solutions for them. A single solution can't do both well,
since there's a fundamental difference between author-controlled and
UA-controlled decision.
--
regards, Kornel Lesiński
