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

Re: Proposed adaptive image element

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:56:46 +0200
To: "Mathew Marquis" <mat@matmarquis.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "Ng, Sheau (NBCUniversal)" <Sheau.Ng@nbcuni.com>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wgnvcwi6wxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:46:36 +0200, Ng, Sheau (NBCUniversal)  
<Sheau.Ng@nbcuni.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm new to this group. My view is that the proposed feature would be
> applicable not only on image element, but to video and possibly other
> elements as well.
>
>
> The quality is generally improved when the source can adapt to the
> destination capabilities, rather than have the clients perform possibly
> CPU intensive scaling or other format adaptation.

Hi Sheau,

there is already work in the public-html-media mailing list within this  
working group to allow for adaptive streaming of media (including working  
with content-protection).

cheers

Chaals

> In the case of protected content, the client-side adaptation is
> generally done on the clear-text content, which could pose additional
> content security issues.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sheau Ng | NBCUniversal | P: +1-609-759-0819
>
>
> From: Mathew Marquis [mailto:mat@matmarquis.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:22 PM
> To: Edward O'Connor
> Cc: HTML WG
> Subject: Re: Proposed adaptive image element
>
>
>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Edward O'Connor wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Mat,
>
>
> 	Chairs and members of the HTML WG,
>
> 	
>
> 	I've posted a proposal for an adaptive image element to a W3C
> wiki here:
>
> 	
> http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/wiki/Picture_Element_Proposal
>
>
> I definitely think that we should add some variety of adaptive bitmapped
> image asset loading to HTML; I've made such feature proposals myself.
>
>
> That said, I think it would be a mistake to add such a feature *in the
> HTML5 timeframe*. We've already deferred several other features to
> HTML.next; if we're going to actually finish HTML5, we need to stop
> taking on new features for it.
>
>
> I'll definitely defer to you guys on matters of process, as I'm well
> outside of my wheelhouse there. My only concern is the effect this
> decision could have on the time between introduction and a potential
> native implementation, if any. If this should be put off until
> HTML.next, what impact would that likely have?
>
>
> This is a rapidly growing problem, and has been for some time. I worry
> about putting off the potential for a native solution, as developers
> find increasingly "creative" ways to work around the issue - or, perhaps
> worse still, simply opt to serve images that account for the "highest
> common denominator" at an additional bandwidth cost to users who may see
> no benefit.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ted
>
>


-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 10:57:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 29 June 2012 10:57:38 GMT