On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.netwrote:
An img element will be de-facto required for a while as a fallback, but
could it be optional eventually? I think that even if browsers implement
picture using img, the img element itself should be hidden in shadow
On 19/11/13 22:07, Simon Pieters wrote:
The selection algorithm would only consider source elements that are
previous siblings of the img if the parent is a picture element, and
would be called in place of the current 'process the image candidates'
in the spec (called from 'update the image
On 19.11.2013 23:22, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
+1. I'm totally fine with this, if the people who disliked multiple
attrs are okay with multiple elements.
+1
--
--
Jirka Kosek e-mail: ji...@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:30:18 +0100, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk
wrote:
This seems like a nice proposal. There seems to be a minor problem that
elements created through innerHTML will have the parser created flag set
and so will not start loading until they are inserted into the
On 20/11/13 12:07, Simon Pieters wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:30:18 +0100, James Graham
ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote:
This seems like a nice proposal. There seems to be a minor problem
that elements created through innerHTML will have the parser created
flag set and so will not start loading
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:11:01 +0100, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk
wrote:
I'm not sure that the extra checks buy you much apart from
implementation complexity.
Maybe you're right.
What are you trying to protect against?
Nothing in particular, it was more of a gut feeling that one
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
So:
picture
source ...
source ...
img src=fallback alt=...
/picture
The selection algorithm would only consider source elements
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Yoav Weiss y...@yoav.ws wrote:
I think it's worth while to enable the `sizes` attribute and url/density
pairs on img as well.
It would enable authors that have just variable-width images with no
art-direction to avoid adding a picture with a single source.
On 20/11/13 14:19, Shane Hudson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Yoav Weiss y...@yoav.ws wrote:
I think it's worth while to enable the `sizes` attribute and url/density
pairs on img as well.
It would enable authors that have just variable-width images with no
art-direction to avoid
Am 20.11.2013 06:24 schrieb Bruno Racineux:
On 11/19/13 12:12 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Markus Ernst wrote:
I can't recall the reasons why Florian's proposal of combining
picture
and @srcset fell out of the discussion. To me it still looks like the
most
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 05:24:21 -, Bruno Racineux br...@hexanet.net
wrote:
If your sources and breakpoints are hard-coded in your articles (stored
DB), and you suddenly have to change your site's theme, or add a new
image at the platform level or a new resolution? What if one breakpoint
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 22:07:33 -, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-respimg/2013Oct/0045.html
I discuss a problem that a new element would have, namely that it would
require a new fallback mechanism and a lot of stuff would need to be
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:12:23 -, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
I responsed to proposals along those lines last year:
This may be a good time to revisit and re-evaluate this. When picture
and srcset were proposed initially there was still a lot of confusion what
reponsive image actually
On 11/20/13 6:09 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
With preload scanner limitation definitions in head is the best we
could
possibly do. I have proposed Media Query Variables intended to be used in
style in head for responsive images.
I've also wanted MQ variables to be usable
* Bruno Racineux wrote:
Maybe Google should announce they'll start penalizing sites who do not
gzip, to change that. Either a press release on April 1st, just as an
educational scare tactic. Or a actual Webmaster Tools notification for
more awareness of non-gzipped site, or both :)
Google have
Am 19.11.2013 08:49 schrieb Yoav Weiss:
If you'd like to further discuss that concern, can you please open up a new
thread? This one discusses solutions to the responsive images problem
use-cases (e.g. src-N, picture, srcset, etc)
My personal conclusion of this part of the thread is: The
On 19/11/13 01:55, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:12:12 -, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
AFAIK it makes it as easy to implement and as safe to use as src-N.
Simon, who initially raised concerns about use of source in picture
found that solution acceptable[2].
Am 19.11.2013 12:13 schrieb Markus Ernst:
Am 19.11.2013 08:49 schrieb Yoav Weiss:
If you'd like to further discuss that concern, can you please open up
a new
thread? This one discusses solutions to the responsive images problem
use-cases (e.g. src-N, picture, srcset, etc)
My personal
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Markus Ernst wrote:
I can't recall the reasons why Florian's proposal of combining picture
and @srcset fell out of the discussion. To me it still looks like the
most useable draft so far.
I responsed to proposals along those lines last year:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Bruno Racineux br...@hexanet.net wrote:
If I can give two top of my head analogies. With that pattern of thinking,
something like the rather complex to understand CSS flexbox wouldn't
exist. Or inline javacript would be allowed for fear of a dumb mistake by
an
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
So:
picture
source ...
source ...
img src=fallback alt=...
/picture
The selection algorithm would only consider source elements that are
previous siblings of the img if the parent is a picture element, and
would
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Using a url/size pair in src=''
would be invalid if sizes='' wasn't specified.
On second thought, this isn't necessary. You can always set img
width, or just let it take the default intrinsic width of 300px.
picture
[sorry for the repeated emails]
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Using a url/size pair in src=''
would be invalid if sizes='' wasn't specified.
On second thought, this isn't
On 11/19/13 12:12 PM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Markus Ernst wrote:
I can't recall the reasons why Florian's proposal of combining
picture
and @srcset fell out of the discussion. To me it still looks like the
most useable draft so far.
I responsed to proposals
On 18/11/13 03:25, Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
Without starting a debate on what semantics or aesthetics mean, syntax
is a big deal. A bad syntax can
...@whatwg.org), Timothy Hatcher
timo...@apple.com (mailto:timo...@apple.com)
Subject: Re: [whatwg] The src-N proposal
Message-ID:
CAAWBYDB34Wh6fLCBodozKOABGLrib53A=B2-0Yv=bcd0qge...@mail.gmail.com
(mailto:bcd0qge...@mail.gmail.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Nov 17
On 18.11.2013 14:38, Marcos Caceres wrote:
we really need to, srcset. The developer community already made
significant sacrifices in compromising on picture because of issues
that implementers raised about nested elements
Are those issues with nested elements described somewhere? I wasn't
On Nov 18, at 10:34 AM, Jirka Kosek wrote:
On 18.11.2013 14:38, Marcos Caceres wrote:
we really need to, srcset. The developer community already made
significant sacrifices in compromising on picture because of issues
that implementers raised about nested elements
Are those issues with
On 18/11/13 16:36, matmarquis.com wrote:
I recall that some of the more
specific resistance was due to the complication involved in
implementing and testing existing media elements, but I can’t claim
to understand precisely what manner of browser-internal complications
`source` elements brought
On Monday, November 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jirka Kosek wrote:
On 18.11.2013 14:38, Marcos Caceres wrote:
we really need to, srcset. The developer community already made
significant sacrifices in compromising on picture because of issues
that implementers raised about nested elements
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:40 AM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk wrote:
This ugliness creates real issues e.g. if I have src-1, src-2 [...] and I
decide I want a rule that is consulted between src-1 and src-2, I need to
rewrite all my attribute names. Whilst this might produce a pleasant
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:40 AM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk
wrote:
This ugliness creates real issues e.g. if I have src-1, src-2 [...] and I
decide I want a rule that is consulted between src-1 and src-2, I need
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Yoav Weiss y...@yoav.ws wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:40 AM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Yoav Weiss y...@yoav.ws wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:40 AM, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk
wrote:
This ugliness creates real issues e.g. if I have src-1, src-2 [...] and I
On 11/18/13 5:38 AM, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com wrote:
Agree. It would be ideal to try to find a way forward here with src-n.
Mozilla is not really interested in restarting this whole effort again
with imgset or new CSS-in-the-head proposals (though, of course,
orthogonal improvements to
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:47:08 -, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk
wrote:
On 18/11/13 16:36, matmarquis.com wrote:
I recall that some of the more
specific resistance was due to the complication involved in
implementing and testing existing media elements, but I can’t claim
to understand
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:47:08 -, James Graham ja...@hoppipolla.co.uk
wrote:
On 18/11/13 16:36, matmarquis.com wrote:
I recall that some of the more
specific resistance was due to the complication involved in
On 18 November 2013 23.18.37, Bruno Racineux wrote:
For all it's worth, my outside take on both of srcset and src-N has always
been that it's not DRY enough, and more unnecessary bloat to pages, due
the long unnecessary repetition of img-path(s) for each img of similar
size, repeating the same
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:12:12 -, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
AFAIK it makes it as easy to implement and as safe to use as src-N.
Simon, who initially raised concerns about use of source in picture
found that solution acceptable[2].
I'd love to hear feedback about simplified,
On Nov 18, 2013, at 5:55 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:12:12 -, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
AFAIK it makes it as easy to implement and as safe to use as src-N.
Simon, who initially raised concerns about use of source in picture
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:18:37 -, Bruno Racineux br...@hexanet.net
wrote:
All I hear from implementors as a whole, is that: you don't want to go
the css imgset or image-set road, you won't use src-templates, and you
don't
want any new macro. Seriously, what it left?
Indeed, the
On 11/18/13 4:25 PM, Qebui Nehebkau qebui.neheb...@gmail.com wrote:
Many people seem to find regexps
difficult to understand, and the regexps involved would only get more
difficult as the complexity of URL patterns increases. Forcing authors
to use them sounds like a great way to guarantee
On 11/18/13 6:21 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
However, the most terse syntaxes are starting to look like Perl. It's not
always the best idea to squeeze every byte out of a syntax.
Even if none of existing proposals is perfect in terms of DRY, I think
overall they're good
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Bruno Racineux br...@hexanet.net wrote:
Because these (only 0.2% uzing gzip) stats do not look good at all in
support of your theoretical argument:
http://trends.builtwith.com/Server/GZIP-Module
That measures mod_gzip adoption.
HTTP Archive tracks top 300K
On 11/18/13 8:21 PM, Ilya Grigorik igrigo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Bruno Racineux br...@hexanet.net wrote:
Because these (only 0.2% uzing gzip) stats do not look good at all in
support of your theoretical argument:
http://trends.builtwith.com/Server/GZIP-Module
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Bruno Racineux br...@hexanet.net wrote:
On 11/18/13 8:21 PM, Ilya Grigorik igrigo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Bruno Racineux br...@hexanet.net
wrote:
Because these (only 0.2% uzing gzip) stats do not look good at all in
On Nov 17, 2013, at 4:49 AM, Timothy Hatcher timo...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
This entire discussion, for months, has been entirely about syntax. I
don't think I've seen a single person talk about semantics, nor do I
think it
On Nov 17, 2013 7:16 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2013, at 4:49 AM, Timothy Hatcher timo...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
This entire discussion, for months, has been entirely about syntax. I
don't think
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
Without starting a debate on what semantics or aesthetics mean, syntax is a
big deal. A bad syntax can totally kill a feature.
Believe me, I agree; I named my last coding project Bikeshed, after all. ^_^
This is why I find
On Nov 16, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Timothy Hatcher timo...@apple.com wrote:
My objections were mostly about semantics and not purely aesthetic. I also
wasn't the only one to raise concerns on webkit-dev. To represent the
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Ryosuke Niwa rn...@apple.com wrote:
Without starting a debate on what semantics or aesthetics mean, syntax
is a big deal. A bad syntax can totally kill a feature.
Believe me, I
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 08:20:33 -, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
This is similar to AppCache vs Alex's ServiceWorkers. AppCache
addresses a small set of use cases, probably not enough. ServiceWorkers
provides the
tools to address a lot of use cases, but isn't directly itself a
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
Basically authors will hate us. We've been going in circles for a couple of
years now and all we have to offer is an incomplete solution? And browser
vendors can't even agree which one of the half-baked solutions is it
On Nov 16, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
Basically authors will hate us. We've been going in circles for a couple of
years now and all we have to offer is an incomplete solution? And
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Timothy Hatcher timo...@apple.com wrote:
My objections were mostly about semantics and not purely aesthetic. I also
wasn't the only one to raise concerns on webkit-dev. To represent the WebKit
community concerns as “personal” is disingenuous. I don't pretend
On Nov 16, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
This entire discussion, for months, has been entirely about syntax. I
don't think I've seen a single person talk about semantics, nor do I
think it would make much sense to do so.
Maybe semantics is the wrong word. I
Hi Henri,
You wrote:
Just like AppCache, srcset is not something that you can iterate on.
You can't add features without breaking compatibility.
This is incorrect. The srcset= parser is specced such that new
descriptors can be added in a backwards-compatible way.
Ted
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Edward O'Connor eocon...@apple.com wrote:
Hi Henri,
You wrote:
Just like AppCache, srcset is not something that you can iterate on.
You can't add features without breaking compatibility.
This is incorrect. The srcset= parser is specced such that new
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Rafael Rinaldi wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there’s no way to avoid verbosity to solve such thing.
The way you avoid complexity in such things is that you
On 09.11.2013, at 11:49, Markus Lanthaler markus.lantha...@gmx.net wrote:
On Saturday, November 09, 2013 12:53 AM, Bruno Racineux wrote:
On 11/8/13 10:46 AM, Rafael Rinaldi rafael.rina...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there¹s no way
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Rafael Rinaldi wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there’s no way to avoid verbosity to solve
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Ilya Grigorik igrigo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's easy to look at something more complex than what you're used to
and dismiss all the excess as unneeded, but it's really, seriously not
in
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Ilya Grigorik igrigo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's easy to look at something more complex than what you're used to
and
On Nov 10, 2013 11:39 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Ilya Grigorik igrigo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I believe you're applying an inappropriately high standard of required
agreement to this proposal, compared to what the usual required level
is for something to be accepted.
If Blink ships src-N and WebKit ships
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ilya Grigorik igrigo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I believe you're applying an inappropriately high standard of required
agreement to this proposal, compared to what the usual required level
is
On Nov 11, 2013, at 5:53 AM, Ilya Grigorik igrigo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
I believe you're applying an inappropriately high standard of required
agreement to this proposal, compared to what the usual required level
is for
On Nov 10, 2013, at 12:20 AM, Adam Barth w...@adambarth.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Rafael Rinaldi wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there’s no way to avoid verbosity to solve such
On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:41:57 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Rafael Rinaldi wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there’s no way to avoid
On Saturday, November 09, 2013 12:53 AM, Bruno Racineux wrote:
On 11/8/13 10:46 AM, Rafael Rinaldi rafael.rina...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there¹s no way to avoid verbosity to solve such thing.
The only way to avoid verbosity on
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Markus Lanthaler
markus.lantha...@gmx.netwrote:
Well, an alternative would be to move the complexity to the server. I very
much doubt that webmasters are going to create all those variations
manually
anyway. And if so, it's enough to store them according a
Following some discussion regarding the src-N proposal[1] on the
blink-dev[2] and webkit-dev[3][4] mailing lists, I think it's a good idea
to move the discussion to a vendor neutral list, where all vendors can
freely participate.
To sum up the discussion so far:
* The src-N proposal got the
* The developer community and the RICG are rallying behind src-n, with work
on picture being discontinued in favor of src-N.
I'd like to clarify that src-N got support from RCIG on assumption that
picture has been rejected by browser vendors and has no future.
However, many members have
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Yoav Weiss wrote:
Following some discussion regarding the src-N proposal[1] on the
blink-dev[2] and webkit-dev[3][4] mailing lists, I think it's a good
idea to move the discussion to a vendor neutral list, where all vendors
can freely participate.
FWIW, my view is that
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Yoav Weiss wrote:
Following some discussion regarding the src-N proposal[1] on the
blink-dev[2] and webkit-dev[3][4] mailing lists, I think it's a good
idea to move the discussion to a vendor neutral list,
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Rafael Rinaldi wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there’s no way to avoid verbosity to solve such thing.
The way you avoid complexity in such things is that you don't solve the
overall problem, you solve small segments of the
On Nov 8, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Rafael Rinaldi wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there’s no way to avoid verbosity to solve such thing.
The way you avoid complexity in such things is that you
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On Nov 8, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Rafael Rinaldi wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there’s no way to avoid verbosity to solve
On 11/8/13 10:46 AM, Rafael Rinaldi rafael.rina...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks complex because it tries to solve something complex. I think
there¹s no way to avoid verbosity to solve such thing.
The only way to avoid verbosity on every img element would be to
predefine a relationship between the
79 matches
Mail list logo
