On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:09:24 +0200, Jeremy Keith <jer...@adactio.com>
wrote:
Simon asked:
It also lets us add "max-width", though that may complicate
the resource choosing algorithm a bit.
~TJ
Does doing so solve any use cases?
Yes, absolutely. I can go through it all again, but basically having
both a min-width/height and a max-width/height option gives the
developers the choice of either building in a "Mobile First" or Desktop
First" way.
i.e.
either:
Use a small image by default in src and list larger and larger images in
srcset
or:
Use a large image by default in src and list smaller and smaller images
in srcset.
If you want specific examples of responsive sites currently using one or
other of these techniques, I'll be able to find them for you.
I agree that that is a use case that should be solved, but I don't see how
having both min- and max- solves that. The email you just replied to had a
proposal to address that use case, though:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 08:28:56 +0200, Simon Pieters <sim...@opera.com> wrote:
Also, since the fallback image participats as a candidate, but you
cannot change its descriptors, you are not free to use any of the
images as the fallback image. You might either want the narrowest image
to be the fallback, or the widest image, or one in between, but the
syntax doesn't allow choice, AFAICT.
To solve this problem, I propose that we allow the src URL to be
specified in srcset, and when it is, don't add src as a candidate. It
would be good with a keyword "inf" or "infinity" as a width descriptor
in this case so you don't need to specify "1x" when you want infinity.
(This even allows using one of the "in between" images as the fallback.)
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
