Le 15/05/12 09:28, Ian Hickson a écrit :
<img src="[email protected]" alt="" src-template="face-%w-%h@%r.jpeg" src-versions="600x200x1 600x200x2 200x200x1">[snip] <img src="[email protected]" alt="" srcset="[email protected] 600w 200h 1x, [email protected] 600w 200h 2x, face-icon.png 200w 200h">
Three comments: 1. from the point of view of an editor (I mean a wysiwyg application), this is far too complex and painful. With my BlueGriffon hat on, please trust me on that. Where is the harmony, the consistency with the multi-source video and audio elements? Why should browsers and editing tools have to deal with a different mechanism? 2. the %w and %h syntax above will clash with the necessary escaping of non-URL compliant characters and I think this is a _very_ bad idea. All examples I saw include filenames only but these are really URIs ! 3. for the same reason, because some filesystems allow whitespaces and commas and more in filenames, the latter seems to me dangerous and certainly a bad idea. I know whitespaces in URIs will be encoded but decoding srcset will then imply parsing it to extract URIs before unescaping or whitespaces will become a problem. That's really too expensive. It's much more subjective but I have an extra comment: the proposed srcset attribute is absolutely ugly. I think the srcset approach is wrong. </Daniel> -- W3C CSS Working Group, Co-chair
