On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Bruno Racineux <[email protected]> wrote:
> If I can give two top of my head analogies. With that pattern of thinking,
> something like the rather complex to understand CSS flexbox wouldn't
> exist. Or inline javacript would be allowed for fear of a dumb mistake by
> an amateur.
>
> I think, this kind of false misdirected fears, are actually overemphasized
> concerns by some here. If we worry about 'stupid' so much that it hinders
> progress. It could set priorities backwards.
I think there's a qualitative difference between "this particular
thing is more complex than necessary in a way that virtually
guarantees it will be misused" and "no even slightly complicated
things should ever be allowed anywhere ever". *Not* worrying too much
about "stupid" doesn't mean that we have to do everything the hard
way, either.
> Perhaps, a reason I come to this conclusion, is that: An advantage with
> the Worpdress img-name-{width}x{height}.jpg syntax is that you don't need
> any tokens at all. As long as the With and Height are declared inline,
> you can figure out the ratio, and match that with the list of available
> widths to get the right image.
Sure, but, like I said, that only works as far as you stick to the
rigid pattern for image names. As soon as you want to break the
pattern, or - heaven forfend! - *extend* it, it becomes a serious
liability, to say the least.
> Which makes src-N or srcset ever more so unnecessary for that particular
> naming convention, that I'd rather almost have a few lines of inline
> javascript do it in the head, for the Wordpress platform.
That's great, for the Wordpress platform. Everyone else might still
want responsive images that don't require them to emulate Wordpress.
