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
I've been doing a lot of work today correcting misconceptions about
the Responsive Images proposal that Hixie put into the spec today. I
was pretty astonished at how much misinformation was flying around;
what's worse, this sort of misinformation was actually making people
*angry*, which doesn't
2012-05-16 03:26 Europe/Helsinki: Tab Atkins Jr.:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jason Grigsby ja...@cloudfour.com wrote:
In the @srcset syntax, I *think* I would end up with something like this:
img src=a.png
srcset=a-rectangle.png 300w 150h 1x,
a-square.png 100w 100h 1x
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Mikko Rantalainen
mikko.rantalai...@peda.net wrote:
2012-05-16 03:26 Europe/Helsinki: Tab Atkins Jr.:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Jason Grigsby ja...@cloudfour.com wrote:
In the @srcset syntax, I *think* I would end up with something like this:
img
On 16/05/2012 00:23, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:17:54 +0100, Chris Heilmann code...@gmail.com
wrote:
The fetish for brevity is something I never understood. More
understandable code is faster to write than cryptic short code.
There is significant difference in verbosity
2012-05-16 10:19 Europe/Helsinki: Tab Atkins Jr.:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Mikko Rantalainen
mikko.rantalai...@peda.net wrote:
I think that the correct syntax would be
img src=a-square.png srcset=a-rectangle.png 2x 600w
because the author assumes that the image will be rendered
img src=data: srcset=foo.jpg 1x, foo2.jpg 2x
style=display:none;noscriptimg src=foo.jpg/noscript
So we praise the terse syntax of it and then offer a NOSCRIPT for
backwards compatibility? Now that is a real step back in my opinion.
On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:42:46 +0200, Chris Heilmann code...@gmail.com
wrote:
img src=data: srcset=foo.jpg 1x, foo2.jpg 2x
style=display:none;noscriptimg src=foo.jpg/noscript
So we praise the terse syntax of it and then offer a NOSCRIPT for
backwards compatibility? Now that is a real step
Am 16.05.2012 um 09:13 schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.:
I've been doing a lot of work today correcting misconceptions about
the Responsive Images proposal that Hixie put into the spec today. I
was pretty astonished at how much misinformation was flying around;
what's worse, this sort of misinformation
Thank you for the well written email.
On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:13:01 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
3. @srcset doesn't have good fallback behavior. Yup, it does. The
simplest way is to just do the simplest thing: provide both a @src and
a @srcset, and that's it. This has
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
Am i right in believing that the srcset attribute are limited to
pixels? A unit that's dying out in all responsive designs? Is it
extensible to em, % etc? Because that's what's used.
On 16 May 2012 08:39, Chris Heilmann code...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/05/2012 00:23, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
On
On Wed, 16 May 2012 10:33:05 +0200, Matthew Wilcox
m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
Am i right in believing that the srcset attribute are limited to
pixels? A unit that's dying out in all responsive designs? Is it
extensible to em, % etc? Because that's what's used.
I'm afraid you are confusing
On 2012-05-10 09:58, Edward O'Connor wrote:
Hi,
When authors adapt their sites for high-resolution displays such as the
iPhone's Retina display, they often need to be able to use different
assets representing the same image. Doing this for content images in
HTML is currently much more of a pain
I have joined this list after reading @wilto's a list apart article
(http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-images-and-web-standards-at-the-turning-point/)
and realised it was about time I stopped sitting on the sideline and get
involved in the debate.
I have searched the archives as
As far as I'm aware SVG does not tackle the primary type of image an
img element diaplsys - photographic, non-vector images.
SVG has a number of ways to include raster graphics images, the
previously included example does just this.
So wrap an image in SVG? I don't see this as being very clean.
On 16 May 2012 10:49, Aldrik Dunbar ald...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I'm aware SVG does not tackle the primary type of image an
img element diaplsys - photographic, non-vector images.
SVG has a number of ways to include raster
On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:22:07 +0200, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
wrote:
Inventing a new microsyntax is tricky.
- comma separated implies you'll need to escape a comma when it
appears in a URI; this may be a problem when the URI scheme assigns a
special meaning to the comma (so it
On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:50:51 +0200, Matthew Wilcox
m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
So wrap an image in SVG? I don't see this as being very clean.
The problems Tab pointed out are enough for it to not meet the use cases
anyway. So it doesn't matter one way or the other. :-) Using SVG like this
This is *way* more verbose than either picture or img srcset,
The HTML is far simpler (a single img), it keeps content separate from
the presentation and it works today. More elegant formats (that load
progressively) may be available in the future but the point is that we
don't need any extra
The lack of em support is a concern though I understand the complications you
have brought up.
Using ems for media queries (which in turn dictate layout which in turn
dictates the image I want to load) is increasingly looking like a much wiser
decision than using pixels. A perfect example are
On 2012-05-16 11:51, Odin Hørthe Omdal wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:22:07 +0200, Julian Reschke
julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
Inventing a new microsyntax is tricky.
- comma separated implies you'll need to escape a comma when it
appears in a URI; this may be a problem when the URI scheme
Tab wrote:
I suspect this is simply confusion about the proposal - @srcset
handles the art-directed case same as picture, just with a
somewhat more compact microsyntax rather than using MQs directly.
You're right. I was thinking that the values (Nh Nw Nx) described the *image*
but in fact
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jeremy Keith jer...@adactio.com wrote:
You're right. I was thinking that the values (Nh Nw Nx) described the *image*
but in fact they describe (in the case of Nh and Nw) the viewport and (in the
case of Nx) the pixel density of the screen/device.
I suspect I
Tim Kadlec t...@timkadlec.com wrote:
The lack of em support is a concern though I understand the
complications you have brought up.
Using ems for media queries (which in turn dictate layout which in turn
dictates the image I want to load) is increasingly looking like a much
wiser decision
Chalk me up as another making that mistake. Properties on elements
usually describe a property of the element. Not a property of
something else (like the viewport).
I'm happier than I was about srcset - but why does the spec assume
pixels? Or does it?
Use case: design breakpoints can and often
Also, srcset does not abstract the control points away from the image
itself. I have already been over why this is a problem and
future-unfriendly. Breakpoints are based on a when a *design* becomes
visually broken, not on the width of a device. So, when a design
changes, so will the response
Note that this is also my major criticism of picture and the reason
why I would not use it in the current CG state - and why I've been
looking into meta variables as a method of abstracting the response
points away from the responding element.
I think this is a very important consideration.
Hello
I try to follow the actual discussion with much interest and, I admit,
not full understanding. If my inputs are inappropriate, please feel free
to ignore this message.
I read the current spec and huge parts of today's discussions to find
out how images with multiple sources are
Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi wrote:
The what's currently in the spec is terribly counter-intuitive in this
regard.
The spec has a bug where it is contradicting itself in some steps. That
makes it very hard to read and confusing for those who read those steps.
I can see now how it does handle
Oh, please do quote what you are answering. It's very hard to follow
such a conversation like this.
Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
If there was a way to do this in JS, we'd have found it. Every time we
run up against the pre-fetch problem. In fact, it is only the
pre-fetch problem
On 16 May 2012 14:30, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
Oh, please do quote what you are answering. It's very hard to follow
such a conversation like this.
OK, I am not sure what format to reply to emails with - some people
complain when quotes are left out entirely, other people
Simon wrote:
The width/height descriptors in srcset seem to be difficult for people to get
right, even people who read the spec.
* It's not clear from the syntax that it refers to the viewport size rather
than the image size.
Yes, I made this mistake and so did plenty of others. As Matt
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Paul Court p...@pmcnetworks.co.uk wrote:
First, I would like to suggest throwing img srcset out the window and
into a landfill somewhere (It's not even fit for recycling!). This reminds
me if the recent semi-colon in JavaScript debate that erupted as a result
Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
I read the current spec and huge parts of today's discussions to find
out how images with multiple sources are intended to behave when
printed, or when the page is zoomed, but I found no hints. I think some
words on this might be useful in the spec,
On 2012-05-16 15:46, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Paul Courtp...@pmcnetworks.co.uk wrote:
First, I would like to suggest throwingimg srcset out the window and
into a landfill somewhere (It's not even fit for recycling!). This reminds
me if the recent semi-colon in
On May 16, 2012, at 6:45 AM, Jeremy Keith wrote:
Simon wrote:
The width/height descriptors in srcset seem to be difficult for people to
get right, even people who read the spec.
* It's not clear from the syntax that it refers to the viewport size rather
than the image size.
Yes, I
Le 15/05/12 09:28, Ian Hickson a écrit :
img src=face-600-...@1.jpeg alt=
src-template=face-%w-%h@%r.jpeg
src-versions=600x200x1 600x200x2 200x200x1
[snip]
img src=face-600-...@1.jpeg alt=
srcset=face-600-...@1.jpeg 600w 200h 1x,
On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:40:46 -0500, Matthew Wilcox
m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
What's the actual WHATWG proscribed format for conducting conversations
in email
format?
See http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Should_I_top-post_or_reply_inline.3F
--
Mike Taylor
Opera Software
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.dewrote:
It is?
Quick check, do
srcset=a,b
and
srcset=a, b
mean the same thing?
And what about
srcset=a ,b
Yes, they all mean the same thing: a url a with no descriptors, and a url
b with no descriptors. What
On 2012-05-16 16:07, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Julian Reschkejulian.resc...@gmx.dewrote:
It is?
Quick check, do
srcset=a,b
and
srcset=a, b
mean the same thing?
And what about
srcset=a ,b
Yes, they all mean the same thing: a url a with no descriptors,
Cheers :)
On 16 May 2012 15:05, Mike Taylor mi...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:40:46 -0500, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
What's the actual WHATWG proscribed format for conducting conversations in
email
format?
See
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.dewrote:
, is a legal URI character. (Collect a sequence of characters that are
not space characters, and let that be url.)
Actually, the key point is that this is non-conforming to start with: image
candidate strings must
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
It makes me think of something else, but I'll follow up on one of the main
threads
Actually, strike that: src is already included as a candidate in step 13,
which is the only case I can think of where you might want a URL
Jeremy Keith jer...@adactio.com wrote:
If I'm taking a Mobile First approach to development, then srcset will
meet my needs *if* Nw and Nh refer to min-width and min-height.
In this example, I'll just use Nw to keep things simple:
img src=small.png srcset=medium.png 600w, large.png 800w
On 2012-05-16 16:36, Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote:
, is a legal URI character. (Collect a sequence of characters
that are not space characters, and let that be url.)
Actually, the key
I kinda like the
syntax in the spec draft, it's short and sweet. And obvious when you
know.
Everything is obvious when you know. The challenge is making it
obvious when you don't. Which is why using familiar patters is good.
Which is why picture had a strong advantage in that regard.
People
Even i took the draft wrong and I would count me as advanced dev.
How in world should a normal dev do this correct?
Anselm
Am 16.05.2012 um 17:05 schrieb Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com:
I kinda like the
syntax in the spec draft, it's short and sweet. And obvious when you
know.
On Wed, 16 May 2012 03:50:21 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com
wrote:
I'm not sure. What do you think? As far as I've seen, you're highly
knowledgeable about video. Why do we have mediaqueries on
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Aldrik Dunbar ald...@gmail.com wrote:
This is *way* more verbose than either picture or img srcset,
The HTML is far simpler (a single img), it keeps content separate from
the presentation and it works today. More elegant formats (that load
progressively) may be
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Simon Pieters sim...@opera.com wrote:
The width/height descriptors in srcset seem to be difficult for people to
get right, even people who read the spec.
* It's not clear from the syntax that it refers to the viewport size rather
than the image size.
* It's
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
Also, srcset does not abstract the control points away from the image
itself. I have already been over why this is a problem and
future-unfriendly. Breakpoints are based on a when a *design* becomes
visually broken,
First off I know that a number of people say this is not possible. I
am not wanting to argue this because I don't have the knowledge to
argue it - but I do want to understand why, and currently I do not.
Please also remember that I can only see this from an authors
perspective as I'm ignorant of
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal odi...@opera.com wrote:
Tim Kadlec t...@timkadlec.com wrote:
The lack of em support is a concern though I understand the complications
you have brought up.
Using ems for media queries (which in turn dictate layout which in turn
dictates the
On 16 May 2012 19:47, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
Also, srcset does not abstract the control points away from the image
itself. I have already been over why this is a problem and
future-unfriendly.
It's not that bandwidth queries aren't possible, it's that they're not
*useful* for the things you'd want to use them for, and they don't act
like you'd want anyway.
I explain much of the reasoning in http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4Hv0
- while the blog post purports to be about resolution
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
On 16 May 2012 19:47, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
Also, srcset does not abstract the control points away from the image
Ok, so really it's an efficiency of authoring problem; before I just
didn't get how it'd be any different to a viewport width from the
perspective of an author.
That said, when coupled with viewport responses... yeah, that could
get complicated to author. Essentially each bandwidth bracket would
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
First off I know that a number of people say this is not possible. I
am not wanting to argue this because I don't have the knowledge to
argue it - but I do want to understand why, and currently I do not.
Please also remember that I can only see this
Maybe this is the better question:
Why does the pre-loader matter so much?
Basing the selected image off of browser width is inherently
backwards. The content should be informed by the layout, not by the
browser.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On 16 May 2012 20:04, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
On 16 May 2012 19:47, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
On 16 May 2012 20:10, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
First off I know that a number of people say this is not possible. I
am not wanting to argue this because I don't have the knowledge to
argue it - but I do want to understand why, and
On 16 May 2012 20:12, Jacob Mather jmat...@itsmajax.com wrote:
Maybe this is the better question:
Why does the pre-loader matter so much?
Basing the selected image off of browser width is inherently
backwards. The content should be informed by the layout, not by the
browser.
I do agree
@Tab - yes I do remember, sorry. I'm being a bloody idiot.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Jacob Mather jmat...@itsmajax.com wrote:
Maybe this is the better question:
Why does the pre-loader matter so much?
Because it lets pages load faster.
Basing the selected image off of browser width is inherently
backwards. The content should be informed by
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Jacob Mather jmat...@itsmajax.com wrote:
Maybe this is the better question:
Why does the pre-loader matter so much?
Because it lets pages load faster.
Sure, but s that enough to
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 20:09 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Ok, so really it's an efficiency of authoring problem; before I just
didn't get how it'd be any different to a viewport width from the
perspective of an author.
That said, when coupled with viewport responses... yeah, that could
get
On Wed, 16 May 2012 20:09:13 +0100, D. Pitchford dpitchfo...@gmail.com
wrote:
What standards does not do in this situation is remove the actual work
effort in having to physically update each and every img's 'srcset'
string with new breakpoints during a redesign, no matter how terse the
The solution I've seen proposed[1] only aliases media query content, and
works only on a per-page basis, so it doesn't allow automatic addition of a
new image size site-wide, since you have to insert new source into every
picture anyway.
That is not true. With that particular solution you
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jacob Mather jmat...@itsmajax.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Jacob Mather jmat...@itsmajax.com wrote:
Maybe this is the better question:
Why does the pre-loader matter
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jacob Mather jmat...@itsmajax.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Jacob Mather jmat...@itsmajax.com
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been doing a lot of work today correcting misconceptions about
the Responsive Images proposal that Hixie put into the spec today. I
was pretty astonished at how much misinformation was flying around;
what's
On Wed, 16 May 2012 20:12:19 +0100, Jacob Mather jmat...@itsmajax.com
wrote:
Maybe this is the better question:
Why does the pre-loader matter so much?
Basing the selected image off of browser width is inherently
backwards. The content should be informed by the layout, not by the
browser.
It's still verbose even if you shift the verbosity into a separate
file; the shifting only matters if you're going to be reusing the
image many times. I'm not certain that's the case here - if the same
image is being used over and over again, it's probably a decorative
image, not a content
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Aldrik Dunbar ald...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course if someone comes up with a progressively loaded image format
this could be handled much more elegantly.
Both PNG and JPEG have had this forever. (PNG's approach is crude, but
JPEG's is reasonable.) However,
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I just wanted to correct one small thing here.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
(The difference that the w3c lists were private is not really a
meaningful difference if we're
On 2012-05-16, at 6:44 PM, Aldrik Dunbar wrote:
It's still verbose even if you shift the verbosity into a separate
file; the shifting only matters if you're going to be reusing the
image many times. I'm not certain that's the case here - if the same
image is being used over and over again,
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 20:12:19 +0100, Jacob Mather jmat...@itsmajax.com
wrote:
Maybe this is the better question:
Why does the pre-loader matter so much?
Basing the selected image off of browser width is inherently
On May 16, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I just wanted to correct one small thing here.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
(The difference that the w3c
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
The downside of the CG as executed is that it was much less successful
in attracting browser implementor feedback (in part because it was
apparently not advertised in places frequented by browser standards
people). So
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
Chalk me up as another making that mistake. Properties on elements
usually describe a property of the element. Not a property of
something else (like the viewport).
If it does indeed rely on a rendering issue (like
On May 16, 2012, at 9:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com
wrote:
Chalk me up as another making that mistake. Properties on elements
usually describe a property of the element. Not a property of
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote:
On May 16, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
I just wanted to correct one small thing here.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:51
83 matches
Mail list logo
