On May 14, 2012, at 8:29 PM, "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <[email protected]> wrote:
> (12/05/15 7:17), Mathew Marquis wrote: >> It’s worth noting that a practical polyfill may not be possible when using >> `img set`, for reasons detailed at length elsewhere: >> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-images-how-they-almost-worked-and-what-we-need/ >> http://www.netmagazine.com/features/state-responsive-images >> >> Long story short: attempting to write a polyfill for `img set` leaves us in >> the exact situation we were in while trying to solve the issue of responsive >> images strictly on the front-end. We would be saddling users with a >> redundant download—first for the original src, then for the >> appropriately-sized source if needed. >> >> Where the new element would be all but ignored by existing browsers, >> efficient polyfills become possible. In fact, two `picture` polyfills exist >> today: http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Adaptive_images#Functional_Polyfills > > Sorry but I don't understand why <noscript> as used around <img> by > these polyfills listed can't be used along <img srcset>. > > If your point is that some Web developers will not cater for NoScript > users and chose to include <img> in <picture>, I think those authors can > use <img srcset> without @src too (if I understand correctly). > > > Cheers, > Kenny I think I saw noscript in picasa galleries. It does seem like the always load aspect of img is leading to these techniques. They're great though for fallback. I guess we are trying to introduce images without loading them upon setting src.
