- From: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:57:03 +0100
- To: "Scott Jehl" <scott@scottjehl.com>
- Cc: "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:34:10 +0100, Scott Jehl <scott@scottjehl.com> wrote: > I may be misunderstanding your point, but I think the fallback img is > there to support browsers that do not natively support/understand > picture. > > It's like <canvas> fallback content, ignored if the picture element > itself is supported. I think that ignoring fallback <img> is a waste. It increases verbosity and adds unnecessary repetition of the <picture> element. <picture> <source src=1.png media="foo"> <source src=2.png> <img src=2.png> </picture> could be shortened to: <picture> <source src=1.png media="foo"> <img src=2.png> </picture> if <img> was interpreted same as <source media="all"> by <picture>-supporting UAs. For the same reason I've also suggested dropping <picture alt> in favour of reusing fallback content: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2012May/0216.html -- regards, Kornel Lesiński
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 16:57:30 UTC