4 ms·
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">
by 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 agoFTFY <imgset> <img src="foo.jpg"> <img src="foo1.jpg" width="100"> <img src="foo2.jpg" density="2"> </imgset>
- tubes 14y agoNot 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 agoCSS 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 agoNot really, what about browsers that don't support first-child? Backwards compatibility is important.