On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:02:22 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]>
wrote:
I can’t second Scott’s suggestion enough. There is a ton of history and
valuable conversation around this topic already in the Community Group,
and we’ve been working with a couple of browser reps trying to get this
thing solved. We’ve even gone so far as to put the solution that seems
to have the most legs together as a sort-of spec, so all the details
are in one easily-parsed place: https://github.com/Wilto/respimg
The Responsive Images work is intended to solve a different issue than
the "send high-res versions if you have the screen and bandwidth to do
so". It's for serving different images based on various MQ
conditions, just baked into HTML markup rather than hacking it in via
backgrounds. MQs, though, are a fundamentally unsound method for
doing bandwidth-responsive image serving. I gave the basic example of
why it fails in an earlier message in this thread.
Indeed. I think there's a confusion around this in general, and
"responsive images" mean different things to different people.
While the solution that Responsive Images group leans towards is
appropriate for solving layout problems, the description of group's goals
sounds more like solving optimisation/dpi problems. I think these are
orthogonal issues and both of them may be worth solving.
I've tried to sort problems/use-cases here:
http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/04/16/summary-of-use-cases-and-requirements/
--
regards, Kornel Lesiński
