Sorry, I forgot to clarify this ― I had in mind adding width/height on each <source> element, not on <picture>.
-- regards, Kornel On 22 maj 2012, at 16:01, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> wrote: > > On May 21, 2012, at 9:37 PM, Kornel Lesi��ski <kor...@geekhood.net> wrote: > >> >> >>> There’s no prior precedent this sort of thing―there’s no reason we can’t >>> find a way to preserve an image’s intrinsic width using `picture`. I wonder >>> if simply adding `width` and `height` attributes on the element (similar to >>> `img`) might solve this, in the event that the author wants to rely on an >>> intrinsic size instead of CSS? >> >> I think that is a very good idea. Having option to do so is good for >> performance, as it avoids reflows. > > If 'width' and 'height' attributes on the <picture> element would do the same > thing as they do on <img>, then they would be setting the size via style, > rather than setting intrinsic size. Even if setting the size explicitly > affected intrinsic size rather than size computed via style, it would miss > the point of intrinsic size, which is that images get automatically the right > amount of space based on the image itself. Auto-sizing may not be the right > choice for all designs, but it is for some designs. > > - Maciej >
