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 <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