Re: What do we do with picture?

I completely agree that we need to find one proposal we’re happy with and
put our weight behind it.

My main concern right now is "teachability". Thinking back on the history
of HTML & CSS (especially when it comes to accessibility APIs), lack of a
clear understanding of the spec (and sometimes the lack of a clear spec)
has directly undermined the usefulness of certain techniques (see
display:none, generated content, etc.). I am a little concerned that if
this syntax is not immediately grok-able by the workaday author, it could
cause us more long-term headaches.

Picture was simple and intuitive IMHO, despite how complex the work would
be for the implementors. SrcN is a little more complicated (and potentially
confusing in a "view source" scenario). I am still mulling over this
syntax, but I think the current state of offering multiple approaches (some
of which are easier to grasp immediately) is a good one.

I have three long flights ahead of me today so I’ll think on it a bit more,
but as of right now I am a tentative +1.




On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013, at 17:14, Ilya Grigorik wrote:
> > +1 for more wood behind fewer arrows. (i.e. publish as Note).
>
> I agree with this as well. I think it will wise to have a clear path
> forward that implementors can live with.
>
> Also, I prefer this proposal to all we've had. It's a very good one. I
> just ache to use it. That would hopefully happen faster if we're all
> pulling in the same direction :)
>
> --
>   Odin Hørthe Omdal
>   odinho@opera.com
>
>