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

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

From: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:03:21 -0500
Cc: public-respimg@w3.org
Message-Id: <523B5D4A-64C5-4B24-9EB9-96CB0805D80B@matmarquis.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Related, this is the text I’ve prepared for the HTML WG outlining the need for the two syntaxes:


The `srcset` syntax defines various resources and “hints” to the browser, so as to determine the most appropriate image source based on criteria such as display density [1]. The browser would then have the option of applying these rules or overriding the author’s specifications to provide optimizations related to available bandwidth, user preference[2], and so on.

The `picture` element defines conditions under which the browser must not be allowed to opt out of heuristics used to determine which resource to present. This includes image source sizes designed to align with layouts variations specified in CSS media queries[3,4,5], or content variations for increased clarity and focus based on the client’s display size [6].

The combination of the `srcset` and `picture` syntaxes fulfills our use case requirements[7] as outlined.

[1] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#resolution-switching
[2] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#user-control-over-sources
[3] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#design-breakpoints
[4] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#matching-media-features-and-media-types
[5] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#relative-units
[6] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#art-direction
[7] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#requirements-0


Feedback—as always—is highly welcomed.

-M




On Jan 16, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Mathew Marquis wrote:

> It’s entirely possible that I missed an email in the shuffle somewhere, but I’m not reading this as the HTML WG pushing for `srcset` specifically—it looks like they were just addressing that bug, in that there was some question as to whether both proposals should be handled as extension specs. It’s a bug from back when the idea of extension specs was just being introduced, and I think some of the commenters were unsure as to whether they held all the same weight as features added to the HTML spec proper. I don’t read Maciej’s message as there being any immediate action taken by the HTML WG.
> 
> If nothing else, I think this email is a good way to kick off the FPWD conversation. So, impromptu vote: does anyone have any objection to submitting the `picture` extension specification ( http://picture.responsiveimages.org ) to the HTML WG, for consideration as a First Public Working Draft?
> 
> -M
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Marcos Caceres 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 17:03:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:03:40 GMT