3 ms·
To my eye, it's a little odd to read an article about multiple groups of experts who spent months or years hashing out a difficult problem, and then to see a co
by Steuard 12y ago
To my eye, it's a little odd to read an article about multiple groups of experts who spent months or years hashing out a difficult problem, and then to see a comment like this one that proposes its own much simpler solution.
Is your thought here that not one of the dozens of people involved considered this sort of syntax during those months or years or work? (That seems unlikely.) Or do you think their reasons for rejecting it were unsound? (You don't seem to have said why.) I'm just not understanding what you're aiming for here.
- ollysb 12y agoTheir proposed solution offers more flexibility in that you can use media queries to specify the upper/lower bounds and also specify the filenames. This feels over-engineered though, firstly because the above solution provides enough information to switch between images (we're not changing the layout here) and secondly because a filename convention is adequate for referencing them. The third reason that I dislike their solution is that it introduces presentation logic(media queries) into html.
- eurleif 12y agoArguably, <img> was already a form of presentation logic present in HTML. This just makes it more capable.