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

Re: [HTMLWG] CfC: Adopt "Plan 2014" and make some specific related decisions

From: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:04:14 -0400
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <93B27B59-A857-4D83-9870-33AB24AA0E10@matmarquis.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

On Oct 13, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 
> On Oct 13, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> In my experience, the implementors in the WHATWG can be fairly quick to propose and implement a featureóMaciej Stachowiak mentioned starting work on a native `srcset` implementation in the #whatwg IRC channel long before its extension specification was published. This leaves us with a fairly uneven playing field: if members of the WHATWG are key decision-makers in terms of features that see immediate implementation, all proposals but theirs are at a disadvantage.
> 
> <chair hat off>
> 
> Here are some relevant points:
> 
> - The WebKit project generally considers inclusion in the WHATWG spec to be sufficient in order to implement a feature, even if the feature is not in any w3c spec (get/putImageDataHD is a recent example). I believe this is true for other vendors too. 
> - Relative to addition to the WHATWG spec, we waited a fair bit before even looking at srcset, in part due to the initial controversy, but were heartened by the addition of aspects of srcset to the <picture> proposal.
> - The incomplete implementation of srcset I started on only currently supports the "x" specifier so it's to some extent a common subset between <picture> and srcset. (I hope to get back to it soon, it is sort of a hobby project for me).

Excellent! While Iím confident that the extended `srcset` syntax and the `picture` syntax can co-exist in an effort to address all of our proposed use cases ( in progress here: http://responsiveimagescg.github.com/ri-usecases/UseCases.html ), the current `picture` extension specification aims to make the use of that resolution-switching aspect ó we believe itís the right tool for the job. 

Would it be alright if I contacted you off-list about this? We have a prototype `picture` implementation underway and Iíd love to coordinate our efforts, or just compare notes!

> - I don't see strong project consensus in favor of  implementing <picture> in WebKit at this time, and mixed feelings about the "w"/"h" specifiers of srcset. 

I can only hope that changes as our extension specification continues to shape up. Weíve isolated and addressed a number of issues ( https://github.com/Wilto/draft-prop/issues?state=closed ) as a result of ongoing discussion and our prototyping, and weíre always looking for feedback from vendors, formal or informal.

Itís a problem long overdue for a solution, regardless of the final form that solution takes. Iíd love to work more closely with the WebKit team in an effort to find one.

> You are correct more generally that proposals with implementor buy-in (at the level of people who write code and/or make feature decisions) are likely to be at an advantage, particularly in a standards process that at some point requires implementations to advance.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
Received on Saturday, 13 October 2012 20:04:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:35 UTC