W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Proposed adaptive image element

From: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:13:30 -0400
Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Message-Id: <001B8D17-AB64-4C33-8861-2D326F3F3CE2@matmarquis.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
HTML WG,

I wanted to check-in with you guys briefly on the status of the RICGís proposal, and update you on a few recent developments with regards to the proposed `picture` element:

A few vendors have expressed an interest in prototyping a native implementation of the `picture` element in the near future. With so much discussion surrounding this topic Iím concerned that thereís still a great deal left open to interpretation, even with the proposal codified at http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/wiki/Picture_Element_Proposal and detailed at http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/06/18/florians-compromise/

Further: the Drupal team is currently discussing the inclusion of the `picture` element in Drupal 8 core, along with the speculative polyfill we developed here at Filament Group ( http://drupal.org/node/1170478 ). I posted that I didnít recommend the use of `picture` prior to a specification or native implementation ( http://drupal.org/node/1170478#comment-6248598 ) and that they might consider the related `div`-based script that replicates the native behavior, for the time being. It does seem that some of the decision-makers involved are still leaning towards the `picture` element itself ( https://twitter.com/attiks/statuses/225636567618818048 , for example ).

I worry that implementors and the developer community alike, having seen a clear need and use for this element as proposed, are considering implementing and using it preemptively. My fear is that either party doing so before a specification has been solidified could result in competing implementations, and broken production sites.

With the above in mind Iíd love to discuss the next steps in working towards a specification, and keep our momentum up. There was mention of filing a bug to have this proposal officially entered into the WG system ó is that our next course of action?  Also, any information I could relay back to the RICG and interested parties would be hugely appreciated.

Thanks!
Mat Marquis
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 21:15:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 July 2012 21:15:08 GMT