W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > November 2012

RICG Planning Meeting Minutes - 11/14/12

From: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:05:50 -0500
Message-Id: <24997117-14F0-44F3-8503-4225D6972378@matmarquis.com>
To: public-respimg@w3.org
Agenda: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-respimg/2012Nov/0009.html

Present: 
Marcos Caceres (MC)
Yoav Weiss (YW)
Mat Marquis (MM)
David Newton (DN)
John Albin (JAW)
Shane Hudson (SH)
Geri Coady (GC)
Agustín Amenabar (AA)
Jesse Beach (JB)

Feedback from TPAC:
MC: The RICG needs to tone down a little when talking to WHATWG/browser vendors. Negative perception of our group. However, TPAC presentation helped win back some friends.
MM: A lot of this likely stems from initial “picture vs. srcset” blowout of almost a year ago; a lot of this talk is still happening. Should take steps to defuse anywhere we can.
MC: Positive feedback from Microsoft
MC: Not all browser vendors cannot participate in the RICG for IPR reasons, so stuff need to move the the HTML-WG soon.
MC: That would enable Ted O'Connor and MS ppl to participate

`picture` spec and `srcset`:
YW: browser vendors have an issue with media queries part of `picture`
AA: What are the issues that have been raised? 
YW: AA, please see https://github.com/ResponsiveImagesCG/picture-element/issues/9
MM: yes, this is a problem. But I like the way img@srcset works. However, there needs to be a solution to art direction problem (for img@srcst).
MM: we need to get everyone on board that @srcset is part of `picture` as we see it.
MM: we should define in the picture spec how we want @srcset to work in terms of “should be treated as a set of suggestions, left up to the UA.”
MM: This is in the `srcset` draft spec now; perhaps we should reiterate in terms of `picture`
MM: MQ should remain as absolutes—you wouldn’t want the wrong *size* image for your layout. Resolution, through `srcset`, is something the UA could override based on user settings and such.
MC: As the RICG did originally, we should explore other declarative syntaxes for `srcse`t. From speaking to browser folks, there seems to be consensus that the current syntax sucks. 

ACTION: Reach out to community to start discussing a more dev-friendly @srcset syntax - https://github.com/ResponsiveImagesCG/meta/issues/17

Advancing `srcset`:
MC: Let's work on a better syntax for srcset
MC: With the use-cases and requirements, documents are good
MC: RE the <picture> spec, we need to closely match impl and spec
MC: reference-implementation, hack picturefill to match browser implementation
MC: Odin has a reference implementation of srcset
MM: The plan is to open a bug for each use-case ( https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17061 )
MM: The use-cases are ready to go through with that plan
YW: Feedback from Henri Sivonen is that if srcset is defined with css pixels, it should resolve the zoom usecase
MM: We need to look into that

ACTION: File bugs against img@srcset where they don't meet the requirements. See: https://github.com/ResponsiveImagesCG/ri-usecases/issues/22 (MC, MM)

Demos:
MC: The demos are awesome, but we need to redo some of the demos
MC: add an dynamically-captured-image demo (i.e., from Camera) that let's you select multiple breakpoints
MC: we also have a repo for a demo template: https://github.com/ResponsiveImagesCG/demos/
GC: We have an updated template for responsiveimages.org that includes a link to demos, and examples of responsive image pattens in use (Dribbble.com, Microsoft.com, etc.) in the header
MM: Coding that now; will be ready in time for FPWD push.
MC: Should be live in time for traffic rush when FPWD push is announced.
MM: Will include updated demo landing page, as well

ACTION: Complete responsiveimages.org index and demo landing page (GC, MM)

Getting document to W3C Fist Public Working Draft:
MM: First public working draft announcement will likely lead to even more community involvement/feedback
MC: We should plan for media impact for big announcements
MC: The website should be ready with a cohesive story
MM: Once we have both [`picture` extension spec/use case] documents ready, we should publish. Website will be ready in time.

ACTION: Find out what we need to do to move spec to FPWD - https://github.com/ResponsiveImagesCG/ri-usecases/issues/23 (MC, MM)
ACTION: Create milestones in the right repos on Github (MC). 

Drupal 8 launch
JAW: Drupal has `picture` support in version 8 - but its at risk if the spec is not stable
JAW: It may have to be dropped if `picture` won't look like it's going to happen by April
MC: AVG standardization process takes 5 years
MM: Will follow up with Drupal team to see if FPWD by Feb 1 will cut it.
MC: We should investigate ways to make it work for Drupal 8 as a "Plan B"
MM: Suggest use of div-based `picturefill`.
JB: That could work.
JAW: Will look into it.

ACTION: Follow up with Drupal team to see if FPWD by Feb 1 code freeze will be sufficient (JAW, MM).
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 17:06:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:12:39 UTC