2012-05-16 18:01 Europe/Helsinki: Julian Reschke:
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:
Actually, the key point is that this is non-conforming to start
with: image candidate strings
On Fri, 18 May 2012 01:16:52 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
I believe the CG rules
would not allow an employee of a W3C Member company to be a free
agent though.
It appears not. I tried to join the responsive images CG as just me as
I'm interested, but not
On 17 May 2012 18:59, Jeremy Keith jer...@adactio.com wrote:
I much prefer Tab's suggestion:
I think we should just go with a min-width:100px approach, which is
much clearer.
It also lets us add max-width
I'd like to add my support for this - by using a subset of media-queries
the UA can
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Bruce Lawson bru...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 01:16:52 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
I believe the CG rules
would not allow an employee of a W3C Member company to be a free agent
though.
It appears not. I tried to join the
Am 17.05.2012 19:48 schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Jeremy Keithjer...@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
Am 15.05.2012 09:28 schrieb Ian Hickson:
img src=face-600-...@1.jpeg alt=
srcset=face-600-...@1.jpeg 600w 200h 1x,
face-600-...@2.jpeg 600w 200h 2x,
face-icon.png 200w 200h
Re-reading most parts of the last day's discussions, 2 questions
On May 18, 2012, at 3:16 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 15.05.2012 09:28 schrieb Ian Hickson:
img src=face-600-...@1.jpeg alt=
srcset=face-600-...@1.jpeg 600w 200h 1x,
face-600-...@2.jpeg 600w 200h 2x,
face-icon.png 200w 200h
I think we may be talking past each other, as I don't see how your answers
address the problems I'm trying to highlight.
It's not enough to say it's a hard problem. It's not going to solve itself.
If you say media queries can be useful for bandwidth/quality use-cases, you
need to actually
On 2012-05-18 12:30, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 18, 2012, at 3:16 AM, Markus Ernstderer...@gmx.ch wrote:
Am 15.05.2012 09:28 schrieb Ian Hickson:
img src=face-600-...@1.jpeg alt=
srcset=face-600-...@1.jpeg 600w 200h 1x,
face-600-...@2.jpeg 600w 200h 2x,
On 05/18/2012 12:16 PM, Markus Ernst wrote:
2. Have there been thoughts on the scriptability of @srcset? While
sources can be added to resp. removed from picture easily with
standard DOM methods, it looks to me like this would require complex
string operations for @srcset.
Are there any use
On 18 May 2012 11:17, Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
I think we may be talking past each other, as I don't see how your answers
address the problems I'm trying to highlight.
Indeed, I'm not debating your points - I accept that it isn't
realistically achievable in HTML/CSS :)
All
Am 18.05.2012 13:09 schrieb James Graham:
On 05/18/2012 12:16 PM, Markus Ernst wrote:
2. Have there been thoughts on the scriptability of @srcset? While
sources can be added to resp. removed from picture easily with
standard DOM methods, it looks to me like this would require complex
string
On 5/18/12 3:16 AM, Markus Ernst wrote:
1. Are there other cases in HTML where an attribute value contains more
than one URI?
* The archive attribute of applet (comma-separated list of URIs)
* The ping attribute of a (space-separated list of URIs)
* The style attribute (which can, e.g., set
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Markus Ernst derer...@gmx.ch wrote:
h1img src=small.png srcset=medium.png min-width:30em, large.png
min-width:50em/h1
pimg 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?
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.dewrote:
...which of course means that it stops being simpler.
No, it means nothing of the sort. An API to access this would introduce
none of the problems with the multi-element approach; it would be simple
and
Looking into some of the features recently added to the canvas spec, I
noticed that imageSmoothingEnabled wasn't added to the list of attributes
saved and restored in the canvas state (in sec. 4.8.11.1.1). This also
seems to be the case for the new line dash parameters.
Intentional, or
On 18 May 2012 15:28, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
Only if there are actual problems solved by doing so, which there don't
seem to be. Instead, people seem to be hunting for excuses to use parts of
the other proposal just for the sake of using them, not to solve any actual
problem.
You have to understand that the picture idea was not the result of
idle thought. We went through a *lot* of thinking to reach that point,
and so it's not actually an attachement to that idea so much as *we
know* that idea inside out, what it does, what it doesn't, and why
it's like that. We had
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/18/12 3:16 AM, Markus Ernst wrote:
1. Are there other cases in HTML where an attribute value contains more
than one URI?
* The archive attribute of applet (comma-separated list of URIs)
* The ping attribute of a
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
bhawkesle...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 5/18/12 3:16 AM, Markus Ernst wrote:
1. Are there other cases in HTML where an attribute value contains more
than one URI?
On 18 May 2012 17:29, Matthew Wilcox m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
You have to understand that the picture idea was not the result of
idle thought. We went through a *lot* of thinking to reach that point,
and so it's not actually an attachement to that idea so much as *we
know* that idea
On Fri, 18 May 2012 20:24:00 +0100, André Luís andreluis...@gmail.com
wrote:
Make no mistake; this is not a pride or attachment thing, this is a
knowing the reasons thing. I personally don't think picture answers
things well enough, nor do I think srcset does. Not for general use
cases - but
Make no mistake; this is not a pride or attachment thing, this is a
knowing the reasons thing. I personally don't think picture answers
things well enough, nor do I think srcset does. Not for general use
cases - but for specific one-off use cases, each has benefits.
Absolutely. And from
On Fri, 18 May 2012 23:11:45 +0100, Matthew Wilcox
m...@matthewwilcox.com wrote:
picture in its current form is unable to support bandwidth-based
negotiation well
By all accounts no solution proposed can do this. This is not a
picture only problem.
srcset allows UA to pick any image
24 matches
Mail list logo
