5 ms·

Why is this information put in the HTTP headers rather than the HTML for the page in question? It just seems like a relatively obscure place to hide what's boun

by tpenzer 14y ago

Why is this information put in the HTTP headers rather than the HTML for the page in question? It just seems like a relatively obscure place to hide what's bound to be a common bit of functionality; not the most noob-friendly solution. I submitted a different potential solution to whatwg forums and a few relevant mailing lists, without much significant feedback, using meta tags to indicate availability of 2x image assets. It does seem more practical to me from the point of view of an author, but maybe I'm missing something important: http://forums.whatwg.org/bb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4998 http://forums.whatwg.org/bb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4998

michaelbuckbee 14y ago
I think it's so that on the individual image requests the server could be 'smart' and decide whether to return a 2x image or not.
- tpenzer 14y ago
  With the solution I propose, it seems like the server could be blissfully dumb, and the client could be smart and choose whether to request 2x images if the page author indicates they're available. I don't see the advantage in this regard.
  - napillo 14y ago
    The solution I propose is just to leave everything the same and have browser vendors make a compatibility view which will increase the size of the text and images.
  - skeltoac 14y ago
    Adding new HTML conventions puts too much responsibility on authors. HAIR requires very little of authors: store your images according to some new convention. This burden exists in other systems, too. HAIR is unique in that this is the only burden placed on authors. They don't have to worry about making their HTML or CSS match their uploads. They don't have to compare dozens of competing JS solutions every time they start a project. Blissfully dumb machines are a less worthy goal than blissfully dumb authors. Raising the bar for millions of people--especially without a standard to bind them--is impossible. OTOH it takes a handful of people working on server and browser software to add HAIR to millions of clients and servers. Another handful of people will make macros to help designers export images into the new format.
    - tpenzer 14y ago
      I guess I set up my proposal the way I did so that authors could explicitly flag assets as being available or unavailable in 2x in the most convenient way conceivable to me, because it would add inefficiency to force a choice between assuming all assets are available in 2x and that none are, as some requests will fail if they're not all available in 2x. I will mention that for my proposal, if you want to assume all assets are available in 2x, the extent of the work for authors would be to add '<meta image-scaling={2:"@2x"} />' to the page. It is potentially more work than HAIR, but I figured it would pay off with server resource efficiency, accessibility to authors, and powerful flexibility. That said, I could totally get on board with HAIR, assuming my concerns are unfounded (which is likely). How does that system affect server capacity and performance? Is there a significant performance penalty for having the server determine whether each asset is actually available in 2x or not before fulfilling the client's request? Is this information which would automatically be cached, and thus not have a significant impact? Or will each image request have an additional operation to perform? Also, does this system force you to have your 1x and 2x assets share the same exact filename? In the example, are the 1x images in the 'img' directory, and the 2x in 'image' with the same filename? I'm sorry if my confusion is making me ask the wrong questions; maybe evidence of the challenge of explaining this system to clueless people like me. [Upon further review, it looks like an img src link to '/img/bob/' would load the 'index.jpg' file from inside the 'bob' directory by default, and then your system would have it load the 'dpr=2.jpg' file if the client wants that. So this imposes even more stringent file naming and organizing restrictions than I had in mind, and it works nothing like what I thought upon first glance (never knew you could even link to a directory for an image asset, and have it load index.jpg, though it does make sense). I am embarrassed to admit that I'm not completely sure where I'd even put those parameters, though I assume it would be in httpd.conf for apache, or maybe .htaccess otherwise. Also, does this require a separate entry for each image on the site?]
      - skeltoac 14y ago
        I am working on an implementation in Apache/PHP. The first part is an internal redirect in .htaccess to a PHP script which decides what to serve. Obviously a PHP script is not optimal for broad use. A better implementation would be an Apache or nginx module. But PHP is handy for experimentation.
KrisJordan 14y ago
Because your markup doesn't need to change to support HiDPI. The beauty of this solution is that the browser can be DPI aware and use HTTP content-negotiation behind the scenes to ask for higher resolution images. This is one of the main, albeit underused, use cases of content-negotiation with Accept headers. The main problem is that it requires both servers and browsers to add support. Whereas with a markup based solution that pointed out how to find hidpi assets existing servers can serve two files just fine.
- tpenzer 14y ago
  It seems inflexible and potentially inefficient though. What if you have 2x assets available for some images but not others? Will the client be making two requests in all those cases? Or will it simply break?
  - KrisJordan 14y ago
    Server logic can figure it out just fine. For a familiar example check out nginx's static gzip compression support [1]. This works today. Browsers can say they support gzip compressed assets in a header. You don't have to add markup to say "get the smaller version". When nginx gets a request it looks to see "is gzip on the accept-encoding list"? If so, it looks to see if a compressed version of the file is sitting on the server and serves that directly. If not, it compresses on the fly. Same story could apply here with a few different details. [1]: http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpGzipStaticModule http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpGzipStaticModule
    - tpenzer 14y ago
      I don't understand how that resolves the issue. Let's say you have two img elements on your page, linking to their respective 1x image assets, and you have a 2x version of the image available for the first but not the second. You indicate 2x availability in your HTTP header, and a client which supports this protocol wishes to display 2x images. Does the client specifically request 2x image file paths for both images, and when the second one fails, as no 2x version exists, the client makes another request for the 1x version, or does it simply fail to load the image? Or does the client request the 1x asset like usual, and when the server determines that one is unavailable in 2x res, it sends the 1x transparently? If that's the case, do we not care about the server using resources determining availability of individual 2x assets because it's insignificant? And could the client easily choose to request 1x assets rather than 2x in a non-hackish way even if it does support 2x resolution (maybe it's concerned about bandwidth)?

by tpenzer 14y ago

michaelbuckbee 14y ago

I think it's so that on the individual image requests the server could be 'smart' and decide whether to return a 2x image or not.

tpenzer 14y ago
With the solution I propose, it seems like the server could be blissfully dumb, and the client could be smart and choose whether to request 2x images if the page author indicates they're available. I don't see the advantage in this regard.
- napillo 14y ago
  The solution I propose is just to leave everything the same and have browser vendors make a compatibility view which will increase the size of the text and images.
- skeltoac 14y ago
  Adding new HTML conventions puts too much responsibility on authors. HAIR requires very little of authors: store your images according to some new convention. This burden exists in other systems, too. HAIR is unique in that this is the only burden placed on authors. They don't have to worry about making their HTML or CSS match their uploads. They don't have to compare dozens of competing JS solutions every time they start a project. Blissfully dumb machines are a less worthy goal than blissfully dumb authors. Raising the bar for millions of people--especially without a standard to bind them--is impossible. OTOH it takes a handful of people working on server and browser software to add HAIR to millions of clients and servers. Another handful of people will make macros to help designers export images into the new format.
  - tpenzer 14y ago
    I guess I set up my proposal the way I did so that authors could explicitly flag assets as being available or unavailable in 2x in the most convenient way conceivable to me, because it would add inefficiency to force a choice between assuming all assets are available in 2x and that none are, as some requests will fail if they're not all available in 2x. I will mention that for my proposal, if you want to assume all assets are available in 2x, the extent of the work for authors would be to add '<meta image-scaling={2:"@2x"} />' to the page. It is potentially more work than HAIR, but I figured it would pay off with server resource efficiency, accessibility to authors, and powerful flexibility. That said, I could totally get on board with HAIR, assuming my concerns are unfounded (which is likely). How does that system affect server capacity and performance? Is there a significant performance penalty for having the server determine whether each asset is actually available in 2x or not before fulfilling the client's request? Is this information which would automatically be cached, and thus not have a significant impact? Or will each image request have an additional operation to perform? Also, does this system force you to have your 1x and 2x assets share the same exact filename? In the example, are the 1x images in the 'img' directory, and the 2x in 'image' with the same filename? I'm sorry if my confusion is making me ask the wrong questions; maybe evidence of the challenge of explaining this system to clueless people like me. [Upon further review, it looks like an img src link to '/img/bob/' would load the 'index.jpg' file from inside the 'bob' directory by default, and then your system would have it load the 'dpr=2.jpg' file if the client wants that. So this imposes even more stringent file naming and organizing restrictions than I had in mind, and it works nothing like what I thought upon first glance (never knew you could even link to a directory for an image asset, and have it load index.jpg, though it does make sense). I am embarrassed to admit that I'm not completely sure where I'd even put those parameters, though I assume it would be in httpd.conf for apache, or maybe .htaccess otherwise. Also, does this require a separate entry for each image on the site?]
    - skeltoac 14y ago
      I am working on an implementation in Apache/PHP. The first part is an internal redirect in .htaccess to a PHP script which decides what to serve. Obviously a PHP script is not optimal for broad use. A better implementation would be an Apache or nginx module. But PHP is handy for experimentation.

KrisJordan 14y ago

Because your markup doesn't need to change to support HiDPI. The beauty of this solution is that the browser can be DPI aware and use HTTP content-negotiation behind the scenes to ask for higher resolution images. This is one of the main, albeit underused, use cases of content-negotiation with Accept headers. The main problem is that it requires both servers and browsers to add support. Whereas with a markup based solution that pointed out how to find hidpi assets existing servers can serve two files just fine.

tpenzer 14y ago
It seems inflexible and potentially inefficient though. What if you have 2x assets available for some images but not others? Will the client be making two requests in all those cases? Or will it simply break?
- KrisJordan 14y ago
  Server logic can figure it out just fine. For a familiar example check out nginx's static gzip compression support [1]. This works today. Browsers can say they support gzip compressed assets in a header. You don't have to add markup to say "get the smaller version". When nginx gets a request it looks to see "is gzip on the accept-encoding list"? If so, it looks to see if a compressed version of the file is sitting on the server and serves that directly. If not, it compresses on the fly. Same story could apply here with a few different details. [1]: http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpGzipStaticModule http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpGzipStaticModule
  - tpenzer 14y ago
    I don't understand how that resolves the issue. Let's say you have two img elements on your page, linking to their respective 1x image assets, and you have a 2x version of the image available for the first but not the second. You indicate 2x availability in your HTTP header, and a client which supports this protocol wishes to display 2x images. Does the client specifically request 2x image file paths for both images, and when the second one fails, as no 2x version exists, the client makes another request for the 1x version, or does it simply fail to load the image? Or does the client request the 1x asset like usual, and when the server determines that one is unavailable in 2x res, it sends the 1x transparently? If that's the case, do we not care about the server using resources determining availability of individual 2x assets because it's insignificant? And could the client easily choose to request 1x assets rather than 2x in a non-hackish way even if it does support 2x resolution (maybe it's concerned about bandwidth)?