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

Re: RICG Planning Meeting Minutes - 11/14/12

From: Attiks <attiks@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:43:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAM7OHzuEyrapbF9tTbAAq5+q_LYSNsRL_B=Cpxvrfyuyygsstw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-respimg@w3.org
All,

This will be changed in Drupal before a dev release is available, I
understand your concerns and I agree that it might be a problem. This
will be changed before February 1st (or earlier). But we have a
feature freeze on December 1st, so it's a bit hectic.

Cheers,
Peter


On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Attiks <attiks@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> This will be changed in Drupal before a dev release is available, I
> understand your concerns and I agree that it might be a problem. This
> will be changed before February 1st (or earlier).
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:05:50 +0100, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>>
>> No-no. :-)
>>
>> This ACTION is not the way to go. As Mat suggested, using div-based
>> `picturefill` is the way to go. To use an actual <picture> element, the
>> browser support be developed and _shipped_ by /at least/ one browser vendor.
>> Preferably two or more.
>>
>> We don't want anyone to use a tag before it is actually implemented. We will
>> be shooting ourselves in the foot (or actually, Drupal will be shooting us
>> in the foot). The design of <picture> will be hampered by how Drupal is
>> doing their implementation. The spec might be frozen in place before we've
>> figured all this out. Suddenly there's lots of legacy tags that
>> implementations would have to consider in order to implement this (in order
>> not to break it).
>>
>> Like <image>, <picture> could very well become a "do not touch" backwards
>> compat problem so that we can't use this tag. I think this a supremely bad
>> idea, and I am very much against it.
>>
>> You say stable, and that FPWD or CR or whatever can be called that. The only
>> way to see if something is stable is that it _both_ has shipped browser
>> implementations (more than one) and some usage on the web. The former has to
>> come first.
>>
>>
>> This has only to do with using the actual, real <picture> element, not the
>> functionality. The div-based `picturefill` doesn't hamper any future
>> implementation efforts of a real in-browser <picture> element. I hope Drupal
>> can go with that one.
>>
>> --
>> Odin Hørthe Omdal (Velmont/odinho) · Core, Opera Software, http://opera.com
>>
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 19:01:44 UTC

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