On Apr 23, 2012, at 3:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > On what standard mailing lists have this idea been proposed or discussed?
I have not yet submitted to w3.org public-html or public-html-comments as I wanted to get the take of the webkit community first, since you guys are particularly interested in this issue. > Again, what makes us think that we won't need background-image-3x, > background-image-4x, ... in the future? Or maybe background-image-7.5x? Then maybe a meta 'image-scaling' attribute rather than 2x-specific. The main point is to avoid requiring each image path for the different scales to be explicitly written, when it's likely a standardized variation from the 1x image file path. We should explore ways to codify those variations, instead of making our lives hard. > Not all images end with ".ext". It could be generated by a server-side script > for example. What do we do with them? Well, if you could think of a way to codify that request in a standardized way, that would certainly be something to consider. Do you think this type of system could be extended to account for such a situation? > By using this approach, we avoid the need to specify the same list of > filenames varying only by 2x-res filename key for every single image asset, > which is a bunch of busy work that just seems extremely redundant and clumsy > to me. We are also able to achieve the same level of performance for those > willing to put in the extra work to flag assets that deviate from the default > setting (to minimize requests), and we allow the flexibility to be lazy or > wrong, and have the user agent make two requests in those cases. This > solution is also completely backwards-compatible with existing browsers. We > can revisit whether or not this was really the best approach once 4x displays > are out, but it's going to save millions of collective developer-hours in the > meantime; remind me to buy future me a beer to make up for it. > > A much better solution would be adding a new http request header, and let the > server send back back double resolution images. > > Quite frankly, I don't think we're interested in implementing this proposal. > > - Ryosuke If that means we don't need to go through and fill out every single file path for every different scale image if there's a file naming system in place, then I'm all for it. I'm just scared we're needlessly making our lives harder than they should be. -Tom P.
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
