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

Re: On use cases, was Re: WebP, anyone using it?

From: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:43:45 +0100
Message-Id: <D0DF6CB8-8100-41E0-A73B-86C29A075A8C@geekhood.net>
Cc: "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
To: Brett Jankord <bjankord@gmail.com>
On 16 paź 2012, at 15:11, Brett Jankord <bjankord@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hixie mentioned that there is already the object element which does this, but the object element leaves a lot to be desired. For example, displaying an .svg in with object element with a nested .jpg img fall-back inside, both images are downloaded by the user, creating unnecessary overhead. 
> 
> Another issue with the object tag is lack of a context menu on right click. I know Chrome supports the context-menu while Firefox does not. This makes saving images / sharing images an issue without this support. 
> 
> To me, these are issues the picture element could solve.

Or it could be broken in the same way. 

These are quality of implementation issues. Browsers can fix them without spec change. 

AFAIK there is nothing in the spec that requires browsers to download all resources from <object> — they can skip unsupported types and stop downloads after the first object that works.

Browsers are also free to support right click on the object.

I support addition of <picture>, but weak <object> implementation doesn't seem like a strong argument for it. 

If browsers happen to implement <picture> poorly as well I won't advocate creation of a  <picture2> element :)

-- 
regards, Kornel
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 15:44:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 16 October 2012 15:44:24 GMT