On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:29:45 +0200, Matthew Wilcox
<[email protected]> wrote:
Personally I think it's better than either <picture> or srcset alone.
But I don't think it's good enough even so, it still has problems:
* It's verbose (but less-so than <picture>).
It's just as dense as the original srcset proposal if you don't need
media queries:
<img src="normal.jpg" srcset="high.jpg 2x">
I my mind, you only pull out the rest if you actually need media queries.
* It has two attributes that could easily be confused as doing the
same job. There's little clear logic as to why they're split, from an
authors viewpoint.
It might be confusing, but there is logic in the splitting:
srcset="....." lets you describe the properties of a set of
equivalent images, and the browser decides which
one is more appropriate given the environment.
<picture><source media="..." lets you decide which image
should be displayed based on the properties of the medium
you're displaying on.
* It bakes design properties into the mark-up. They will be the wrong
breakpoints come any re-design.
It does, and I am somewhat reluctant because of that. But arguably,
<img> already has that problem, even if it is to a lesser degree, and to
be purely semantic, the mark-up ought to only contain the alt text, to
be replaced (or not, if you're on a voice browser) by the approriate
image using the css content property. But <img> is practical enough
that you don't want be bothered with that, and I am thinking that
media queries enabled images (aka <picture>) would be valuable
for the same reason.
- Florian
