:14 -0400
From: Mathew Marquis m...@matmarquis.com
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Cc: Florian Rivoal flori...@opera.com
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Media queries, viewport dimensions, srcset and
picture
Message-ID: e4feb344-8a53-438f-928a-9b9f0f3fe...@matmarquis.com
Content-Type: text/plain
)
--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:39:14 -0400
From: Mathew Marquis m...@matmarquis.com
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Cc: Florian Rivoal flori...@opera.com
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Media queries, viewport dimensions, srcset
WHATWG,
The Responsive Images Community Group was recently asked to furnish a formal
draft proposal for consideration by the HTML WG. I thought it best to post it
here along with some details, where Ian Hickson has mentioned that he’ll be
considering this issue again within a few days.
More
)
--
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:39:14 -0400
From: Mathew Marquis m...@matmarquis.com
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Cc: Florian Rivoal flori...@opera.com
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Media queries, viewport dimensions, srcset and
picture
Message-ID: e4feb344-8a53-438f-928a-9b9f0f3fe
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 03:24:50 +0200, Andy Davies dajdav...@gmail.com
wrote:
In Scott Jehl's latest example of a responsive image polyfill
(https://github.com/scottjehl/picturefill), he produced a variation
that allows a non-retinae image to be downloaded by default with the
user having the
In Scott Jehl's latest example of a responsive image polyfill
(https://github.com/scottjehl/picturefill), he produced a variation
that allows a non-retinae image to be downloaded by default with the
user having the ability to then choose the download the retina version
of image if then wanted.
On May 29, 2012, at 6:49 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
* It has two attributes that could easily be confused as doing the
same job. There's little clear logic as to why they're split, from an
authors viewpoint.
It might be confusing, but there is logic in the splitting:
srcset=. lets
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Florian Rivoal flori...@opera.com wrote:
On the other hand, I think that including 600w 400h in there is misguided.
I agree.
1) simplyfy srcset to only accept the *x qualifier
Is there a good reason to believe that * will be something other than
a power of
Am 06.06.2012 14:36 schrieb Henri Sivonen:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Florian Rivoalflori...@opera.com wrote:
1) simplyfy srcset to only accept the *x qualifier
Is there a good reason to believe that * will be something other than
a power of two?
That is, could we just optimize the *x
On 06/06/2012 21:36, Henri Sivonen wrote:
More to the point, the important characteristic is being able to stop
downloading *quarter* way through the file and get results that are as
good as if the full-size file had been down sampled with both
dimensions halved and that size had been sent
On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:29:45 +0200, Matthew Wilcox
m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
Personally I think it's better than either picture or srcset alone.
But I don't think it's good enough even so, it still has problems:
* It's verbose (but less-so than picture).
It's just as dense as the
On May 24, 2012, at 3:58 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:18:25 +0200, Scott Jehl sc...@scottjehl.com wrote:
With this proposal, could src be used on a source element if you don't
need the features srcset provides?
Or maybe, would that just be equivalent to srcset with a
Personally I think it's better than either picture or srcset alone.
But I don't think it's good enough even so, it still has problems:
* It's verbose (but less-so than picture).
* It has two attributes that could easily be confused as doing the
same job. There's little clear logic as to why
Matt Wilcox's first two points are fair, though I see them as inconveniences
rather than blockers.
To his third point, however:
I see the suggestion mentioned on occasion that content image sizes and design
breakpoints should be coordinated, but in practice, I personally haven't found
much
On 28 May 2012 18:21, Scott Jehl sc...@scottjehl.com wrote:
Matt Wilcox's first two points are fair, though I see them as inconveniences
rather than blockers.
To his third point, however:
I see the suggestion mentioned on occasion that content image sizes and
design breakpoints should be
On 28 May 2012 20:37, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
On 28 May 2012 18:21, Scott Jehl sc...@scottjehl.com wrote:
Matt Wilcox's first two points are fair, though I see them as inconveniences
rather than blockers.
To his third point, however:
I see the suggestion mentioned on
On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:48:39 +0200, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 23.05.2012 17:21 schrieb Florian Rivoal:
Here's what I think we should do:
1) simplyfy srcset to only accept the *x qualifier
2) add support for srcset as an attribute of the source sub-element of
the picture element
On Wed, 23 May 2012 20:56:29 +0200, Matthew Wilcox
m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
I think this is a good step forward, however nless I am
mis-understanding something (entirely possible given how much has been
going on over this recently) there are problems still...
Resolution of an image and
On Wed, 23 May 2012 21:18:25 +0200, Scott Jehl sc...@scottjehl.com wrote:
With this proposal, could src be used on a source element if you don't
need the features srcset provides?
Or maybe, would that just be equivalent to srcset with a single source
listed?
I have no strong preference
Excellent, sorry I was not clear on that; this is looking good!
I would like to re-iterate that this solution is another which puts
design properties into mark-up directly, and just like old picture
and srcset, this means that when it's time to re-design a site an
author is going to have to trawl
Am 24.05.2012 10:27 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
Excellent, sorry I was not clear on that; this is looking good!
I would like to re-iterate that this solution is another which puts
design properties into mark-up directly, and just like oldpicture
and srcset, this means that when it's time to
On 24 May 2012 09:45, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 10:27 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
Excellent, sorry I was not clear on that; this is looking good!
I would like to re-iterate that this solution is another which puts
design properties into mark-up directly, and just like
Am 24.05.2012 11:13 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
I agree, the problem is that... it's still a problem. It's not always
a cropped version, it's sometimes a different image entirely - but we
can only sense the viewport rather than the space into which an image
is sitting. Because we can only sense the
On Thu, 24 May 2012 11:35:35 +0200, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 24.05.2012 11:13 schrieb Matthew Wilcox:
I agree, the problem is that... it's still a problem. It's not always
a cropped version, it's sometimes a different image entirely - but we
can only sense the viewport rather
Sorry for not replying to the right message in the thread,
I was previously not subscribed to this list, so I can't.
As the editor of the CSS Media Queries spec, I've been asked
to share my opinion about this debate on responsive images, srcset,
media queries, etc.
Disclamer: I haven't followed
On May 23, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
Having said all that, I think srcset=foo.jpg 1x, foo2.jpg 2x is quite
good, because it does indeed provide the browser with a set of images with
different quality, leaving it free to pick the appropriate one.
On the other hand, I think
Rivoal flori...@opera.com
Subject: [whatwg] Media queries, viewport dimensions, srcset and picture
Date: May 23, 2012 11:21:44 AM EDT
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Sorry for not replying to the right message in the thread,
I was previously not subscribed to this list, so I can't.
As the editor
flori...@opera.com
Subject: [whatwg] Media queries, viewport dimensions, srcset and picture
Date: May 23, 2012 11:21:44 AM EDT
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Sorry for not replying to the right message in the thread,
I was previously not subscribed to this list, so I can't.
As the editor
: [whatwg] Media queries, viewport dimensions, srcset and picture
Date: May 23, 2012 11:21:44 AM EDT
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Sorry for not replying to the right message in the thread,
I was previously not subscribed to this list, so I can't.
As the editor of the CSS Media Queries spec
Am 23.05.2012 17:21 schrieb Florian Rivoal:
Here's what I think we should do:
1) simplyfy srcset to only accept the *x qualifier
2) add support for srcset as an attribute of the source sub-element of
the picture element (in addition to src, or instead of it? I am not
sure).
Then you could do
Given a set of images of different qualities, browsers can have fairly
advanced heuristics to pick the right one. For example switching from low
res to high res halfway through the rendering of the page if the device is
high resolution and the bandwith just went from bad to good and the
latency
Am 21.05.2012 07:49 schrieb Mike Gossmann:
img src=/img/people.jpg sizes=100x200 300x250 900x300
pattern=/tools/resizer.php?img=people.jpgamp;width={w}amp;height={h} alt=A picture of some
people.
I am somehow surprised that there are no reactions to this proposal. To
me as a humble author
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
I am somehow surprised that there are no reactions to this proposal. To me
as a humble author it looks like it would address the main issue of both
picture and @srcset, as it leaves the MQ to CSS, and thus separates design
On 22 May 2012 10:43, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
I am somehow surprised that there are no reactions to this proposal. To me
as a humble author it looks like it would address the main issue of both
picture and
On May 22, 2012, at 5:43 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
I am somehow surprised that there are no reactions to this proposal. To me
as a humble author it looks like it would address the main issue of both
Am 22.05.2012 12:46 schrieb Andy Davies:
On 22 May 2012 10:43, Anne van Kesterenann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Markus Ernstderer...@gmx.ch wrote:
I am somehow surprised that there are no reactions to this proposal. To me
as a humble author it looks like it would
The patern thing is tangential. SRCSET using image dimensions instead of screen
dimensions would work just as well, so would picture if it was set up to allow
saying what the dimensions of each image are.
I would argue that this does address the pixel density issue though. It does it
in the
Am 21.05.2012 07:49 schrieb Mike Gossmann:
When all the picture vs srcset started showing up on twitter, I was initially
behind picture. I'm sure you all know the arguments for it, and I liked those
arguments. Today though, I was reading an article about the two, and there was
a
I think variables for more than width and height might actually be a bit
redundant, since all the other variables are just copying over values from src,
which are known values when the tag is being created, that won't change on
their own. A developer could just type them a second time and be
When all the picture vs srcset started showing up on twitter, I was initially
behind picture. I'm sure you all know the arguments for it, and I liked those
arguments. Today though, I was reading an article about the two, and there was
a misunderstanding about how srcset was working in the
40 matches
Mail list logo
