Am 17.05.2012 19:48 schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jeremy Keith<jer...@adactio.com> wrote:
Tab wrote:
Absolutely agreed. Like several others have suggested, I think we
should just go with a "min-width:100px" approach, which is much
clearer. It also lets us add "max-width", though that may complicate
the resource choosing algorithm a bit.
Just to be clear, do you mean changing the syntax so that Nw is replaced with
min-width:N?
e.g.
<img src="small.png" srcset="medium.png min-width:600px, large.png min-width:
800px">
or
<img src="large.png" srcset="medium.png max-width:800px, small.png max-width:
600px">
Yes, you got it.
Those two examples would then be functionally equivalent (give or take a single pixel) but allow
developers to take a "Mobile First" or "Desktop First" approach according to
their preference.
Related question: do we still want to keep this unit-less i.e. ditch the "px"
from the examples above? Or, if we're going to use this CSS-like syntax anyway, allow
other units of measurement (e.g. ems).
No, if we're aping the CSS syntax more closely, we should just use CSS units.
<h1><img src="small.png" srcset="medium.png min-width:30em, large.png
min-width:50em"></h1>
<p><img src="small.png" srcset="medium.png min-width:30em, large.png
min-width:50em"></p>
Is em different in these 2 elements, or is it actually rem? And whatever
answer, is it a problem or a feature?
