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

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

From: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:26:10 +0100
To: <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f656451ad7ae512b16bd40e3e99156b7@taurus.uberspace.de>
Looks fine for me :)
-A.

Am 16.01.2013 18:03, schrieb Mathew Marquis:
> 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 [1]
>>
>> [2] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#user-control-over-sources 
>> [2]
>>
>> [3] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#design-breakpoints [3]
>>
>> [4] 
>> http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#matching-media-features-and-media-types 
>> [4]
>>
>> [5] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#relative-units [5]
>>
>> [6] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#art-direction [6]
>>
>> [7] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#requirements-0 [7]
>
> 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 [8] ) 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.
>>
>>>
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Publi
>>
>>> 26.html>
>> te type="cite">
>> At this time, the Chairs propose to decide by consensus to address 
>> the new I
>>
>>> es 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
>> d encouraged and silence will be considered as agre
>>
>>>
>>
>> If your comment is an objection, please clearly
>>
>>> e with the W3C Process, objections SHOULD cite substantive 
>>> arguments and propose changes that would remove the objection.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>> type="cite">Maciej
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [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
> [8] http://picture.responsiveimages.org
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:26:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:26:40 GMT