4 ms·
Please read the spec. Your accusation of this being intended to defeat turning off JS is dealt with here[0]. It's only a +188 -66 patch and eminently readable.
by scarejunba 7y ago
Please read the spec. Your accusation of this being intended to defeat turning off JS is dealt with here[0]. It's only a +188 -66 patch and eminently readable. If you are discussing this without reading it, this is going to be an unproductive discussion.
0: https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3752/files#diff-36cd38f49b9afa08222c0dc9ebfe35ebR28107 https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3752/files#diff-36cd38f4...
- taeric 7y agoThe size is a non sequitor. This is something that otherwise requires javascript. Full stop. No? Now, I don't actually think this is being done to sidestep people that turn off javascript. Mainly because I just don't think that is a market worth worrying about. But I can't see why this is a feature that we need. Progressive loading, I could almost see. But by and large, high resolution images are just not compatible with high speed page loads. I'm not seeing how this feature actually changes that.
- scarejunba 7y agoThe link is to the part of the diff that enforces that it behaves identically to current unannotated tags when Javascript is disabled. Obviously if it's designed to be no different from the current state when JS is disabled then it can't combat disabling JS.
- taeric 7y agoSee, for me, disabling it would be not eagerly loading anything. This is literally putting the site into what is assumed the least optimized state of scripts are off. Ironic, as typically scripts off should be faster.