Am 01.06.2012 um 20:24 schrieb Kornel Lesiński: > On 1 cze 2012, at 00:58, Anselm Hannemann Web Development > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> • Improved alternative text — allows structured fallback, avoids >>> duplication. >> This is where I do not agree. If you use MQ style with <source> you have a >> messy markup when writing alternative text inside the pic-element. > > Since <source> is not read nor displayed, it doesn't matter. You can simply > treat entire content as fallback.
Sure but why? It is much more clearly to use the alt-attribute than using text between container and child elements IMO. >> Alt-text should always be in an attribute and this would also be easier for >> screenreaders etc. > > Structure is there to aid screen readers. > See > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012May/0216.html > >>> <pic src="portrait.jpg (orientation:portrait), landscape.jpg">alt >>> text</pic> >>> Selects image based on orientation of the device. >> >> Why won't you do this with separate attributes? >> Of course this is much shorter to write but it confuses the masses of >> developers because this is not a familiar HTML/CSS-pattern. >> I would like to see it this style which is much more common: >> >> <pic src-xs="small.jpg" media-xs="(max-width:15em)" src-xl="large.jpg" >> alt="alt text" title="title text"></pic> > > I don't mind either way, but this seems a bit more noisier and less compact. > > <source> can be an option for authors who prefer separate attributes. It is noisier of course but also clearer. I think this is a matter of personal preference. >>> Embeds image at 192dpi (default scaling is 2x, possible to override with >>> CSS). >>> Same as `<pic src="image.jpg 2x">alt text</pic>` or >>> `<img src="100x100px" width="50" height="50" alt="alt text">`. >> Why is default scaling 2x? A default image should always be @1x, right? > > We already have element for 1x images – <img> > In the future 1x displays will be low-end minority and 2x will be the norm. > It'll be annoying for designers that the default looks terribly and every > page always needs the bad default overridden. > > I'm trying to avoid need for yet another opt-out from the past like doctype > and <meta charset>. > It'd be great if in 10-20 years all you had to do is type <pic src> instead > of <img src> to get first-class support for hires images. > > To address Tab's concern the default is connected to image-resolution in CSS, > so you can change it if you need to: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012May/0398.html Yes but won't we at least dimiss img from our new code? I thought img is only the fallback… And then we should always serve the minimum resolution first. Regardless which resolution this minimal file has, it should be the @1x IMO. Or am I missing something? >>> (I'm not sure if `<source>` should allow microsyntax in `src` `<source >>> src="b 3x">` instead of `resolution="3x"`) >> I don't think so. It is much easier to have separate attributes. But what >> about extending the media-attr so we can write: >> >> <source src="b" media="3x"> > > Resolution descriptor is not a media query. I'd like to make that clear — > it's not merely an abbreviation of min-device-pixel-ratio, it's a property of > the image — more similar to width/height attributes. Fair enough :-) After thinking a bit about it it sounds better this way. Cheers, Anselm
