3 ms·

This is nice, but it does not put a valid img tag in the document source without javascript execution. That might be fine for things that don't face the public

This is nice, but it does not put a valid img tag in the document source without javascript execution. That might be fine for things that don't face the public internet, but if you do any type of public publishing, you should care about having markup that describes your content independent of scripts or css. This is why standard markup-based responsive images (picture and srcset) are such a big deal.

miggi 12y ago
There is nothing stopping you from setting the src tag. But you are just adding another request. Our base service works perfectly with src set and picturefill. This library is for cases where a different result is desired.
- sleepyhead 12y ago
  Why isn't there an img-tag in the default example? Why are you promoting bad practice by not having images in img-tags? You solved one problem but created a much bigger problem. Bots, screen readers and non-javascript client should see an image, not a div with some attributes.
  - sim0n 12y ago
    They're welcome to target whichever type of users they want to - it's 2014, most average internet users have javascript enabled. Besides, you can add a title/aria-* attribute for bots and screenreaders (perhaps not semantically correct but gets the job done).
    - sleepyhead 12y ago
      Yes it is 2014 and we should be able to follow simple standards that has been around for quite some time.