W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

Re: CfC: to publish "The picture element" specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 21:58:41 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kf9net-pB7k_cDNBLn0tQt7RkFuyDRK2Jn4kT_+GxL8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Mat Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
I admit I did not investigate but remembered somebody saying they'd done a
trial implementation. I might be wrong.
I just think the less implementation exists, the easier it is to come up
with a combined specification.
Silvia.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Silvia,
>
> >At this stage I believe browsers only implement the @srcset proposal
> partially. Is this correct?
>
> I cannot find any mention of srcset being implemented in any browser. I
> did a quick search of the mozilla/chrome/webkit bugzillas and found no bugs
> associated with srcset.
>
> regards
> SteveF
>
> On 4 February 2013 04:17, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Mat Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Merging the two specifications has been one of the the RICG’s goals for
>>> some time now. I’d be very happy to work towards those ends, though I would
>>> propose that the scope of the `srcset` attribute be reduced to a set of
>>> resolution heuristics as a part of that effort. I want to stress that this
>>> does represent the consensus of the Community Group, rather than simply my
>>> own opinions on the matter.
>>>
>>
>> I'm curious to hear from the srcset proponents if they agree with this
>> position and would also be willing to contribute to a merged document. It
>> would be much easier to add the merged document into HTML than individual
>> ones.
>>
>>
>> I do know that maintaining parity with the `srcset` as specced by the
>>> WHATWG is likely a concern, but I’d be more than happy to discuss merging
>>> the extension specifications further if the editor of the `srcset` doc is
>>> amenable to the idea. A native solution to the laundry-list of “responsive
>>> images” concerns is long overdue, but I’m confident that the end is in
>>> sight.
>>>
>>
>> While I am also concerned about the divergence to the WHATWG spec, my
>> main concern is about what is implemented. At this stage I believe browsers
>> only implement the @srcset proposal partially. Is this correct?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Silvia.
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 10:59:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 February 2013 10:59:35 GMT