4 ms·

> the syntax feels awkward, clunky and very specific Yeah, stuff like "2x 100w" looks a bit like magic numbers[1] Also there's potential for confusion in 'x'

by user24 14y ago

> the syntax feels awkward, clunky and very specific Yeah, stuff like "2x 100w" looks a bit like magic numbers[1] Also there's potential for confusion in 'x' - does it mean X as in a co-ordinate i.e. width, or zoom? I'd rather see something more verbose like this: <img src="foo.jpg"> <set src="foo1.jpg" width="100"> <set src="foo2.jpg" density="2"> </img> Yes it's more wordy to write, but you read code more than you write it so it makes sense to optimise for readability over byte-shaving. [1] http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/magic-number.html http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/magic-number.html

othermaciej 14y ago
There are certainly other ways to do it, but this particular way won't work. <img> was historically a "void element" in past versions of HTML, and past browsers, so it can never have child elements.
annevk 14y ago
We cannot change the way <img> is parsed. See e.g. http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/ http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/ for the tree you get with that markup. It's not what you expect.
- user24 14y ago
  Fair enough, but that is a technical limitation which is trivial to get around: <setsrc> <img src="foo.jpg"> <set src="foo1.jpg" width="100"> <set src="foo2.jpg" density="2"> </setsrc> Always be wary of allowing arguments that hinge on "it's not technically possible" to shut down good ideas.
  - Kilimanjaro 14y ago
    FTFY <imgset> <img src="foo.jpg"> <img src="foo1.jpg" width="100"> <img src="foo2.jpg" density="2"> </imgset>
    - tubes 14y ago
      Not a good idea. Browsers that do not support imgset would show all three images using that syntax. A new element name like "<set>" would be ignored by them.
      - Kilimanjaro 14y ago
        CSS to the rescue imgset img{display:none;} imgset img:first-child{display:block;} Same with modern HTML5 tags, modernizer or any other tool would handle that for you.
        user24 14y ago
        Not really, what about browsers that don't support first-child? Backwards compatibility is important.

by user24 14y ago

othermaciej 14y ago

There are certainly other ways to do it, but this particular way won't work. <img> was historically a "void element" in past versions of HTML, and past browsers, so it can never have child elements.

annevk 14y ago

We cannot change the way <img> is parsed. See e.g. http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/ http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/ for the tree you get with that markup. It's not what you expect.

user24 14y ago
Fair enough, but that is a technical limitation which is trivial to get around: <setsrc> <img src="foo.jpg"> <set src="foo1.jpg" width="100"> <set src="foo2.jpg" density="2"> </setsrc> Always be wary of allowing arguments that hinge on "it's not technically possible" to shut down good ideas.
- Kilimanjaro 14y ago
  FTFY <imgset> <img src="foo.jpg"> <img src="foo1.jpg" width="100"> <img src="foo2.jpg" density="2"> </imgset>
  - tubes 14y ago
    Not a good idea. Browsers that do not support imgset would show all three images using that syntax. A new element name like "<set>" would be ignored by them.
    - Kilimanjaro 14y ago
      CSS to the rescue imgset img{display:none;} imgset img:first-child{display:block;} Same with modern HTML5 tags, modernizer or any other tool would handle that for you.
      - user24 14y ago
        Not really, what about browsers that don't support first-child? Backwards compatibility is important.