W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: handle ISSUE-207 responsive-images consistently with Plan 2014

From: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:10:51 +0100
To: <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01db4e4076875f5ebc50b130a1c3dd41@taurus.uberspace.de>
I support both picture and srcset and I think as long as both specs 
will be implemented in future (doesn't necessarily mean in parallel) the 
group should be okay with it.
I do think we need srcset as picture is way too much for most use cases 
but also picture is still needed for arti direction and other use cases.

-Anselm

Am 16.01.2013 16:23, schrieb David Demaree:
> Does this preclude introducing the picture element in the future? I
> feel there's definitely a use case for both picture and img@srcset,
> and if there's some support behind fast-tracking the latter that 
> seems
> like a good thing for responsive images, so long as it's not blocking
> progress on all the other use cases this group is advocating for.
>
> Are there any issues with the particular img@srcset spec they want to
> move forward with?
>
> - DD
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:18 AM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> FYI… thoughts on how the group should proceed? Should we support the 
>> HTMLWG moving forward with img@srcset? Having a formal position as a 
>> group would be ideal.
>>
>>
>> Forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
>>> To: public-html-admin@w3.org <public-html-admin@w3.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:04:58 AM
>>> Subject: CfC: handle ISSUE-207 responsive-images consistently with 
>>> Plan 2014
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on a tracker request in 
>>> <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18384>, we have an 
>>> issue raised regarding responsive images, and a request to 
>>> incorporate a responsive image solution into HTML5 as soon as 
>>> possible, rather than proceeding via extension specs: 
>>> https://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/207>.
>>>
>>> It seems that many in the Working Group have been satisfied to 
>>> handle responsive images consistently with Plan 2014, by proceeding 
>>> via extension specifications for possible later reintegration. 
>>> Previously, the Working Group decided to handle many existing open 
>>> issues in this way: 
>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0026.html>
>>>
>>> At this time, the Chairs propose to decide by consensus to address 
>>> the new ISSUE-207 responsive-images in the same way: by allowing 
>>> extension specifications to proceed (as they already are) and by 
>>> allowing an opportunity for future reintegration if the extensions 
>>> can meet the HTML5 exit criteria.
>>>
>>> If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please respond 
>>> by Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013. Positive response is preferred and 
>>> encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the 
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> If your comment is an objection, please clearly state that. In 
>>> accordance with the W3C Process, objections SHOULD cite substantive 
>>> arguments and propose changes that would remove the objection.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Maciej
>>> (on behalf of the HTML WG chairs)
>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 16:11:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 January 2013 16:11:19 GMT