On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Aldrik Dunbar <ald...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > Adding a new *presentational* attribute/element for adaptive/responsive > images makes no sense and is not required. We already have a flexible > image format that can accomplish this — SVG, e.g.: > > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 900 1135"> > <desc>A painting by Edvard Munch, commonly known as "the > scream".</desc> > <style type="text/css" ><![CDATA[ > svg { background-size: 100% 100%; } > @media (min-width:477px) { > svg { background-image: > url("https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg"); } > } > @media (max-width:476px) { > svg { background-image: > url("https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg/476px-The_Scream.jpg"); > } > } > ]]></style> > </svg>
This is *way* more verbose than either <picture> or <img srcset>, doesn't interact with preloading, and doesn't do any kind of negotiation resolution. There are good reasons for the designs that have been discussed so far. ~TJ