Re: What do we do with picture?

I agree with publishing <picture> as a Note. The srcN proposal is not
flawless but it is fairly intuitive and does not require the new element.

Shane


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
> The Editors of the <picture> spec been under pressure from the HTML
> Working Group Chairs to take some action with regards to picture. We can
> continue to move it forward along the recommendation track or we can
> "end-of-life" it by publishing it as a Note. In light of the src-n
> proposal, I'm inclined for us to publish it as a Note. The rationale being
> that src-n does exactly the same things that <picture> was doing, but
> overcomes the shortcomings with <picture>, in particular:
>
> 1. we don't need a new element (picture) that represent something that
> semantically already exists in the platform (img).
> 2. we don't need to special-case the <source> element.
> 3. we don't need to have an element that accepts child elements (which
> browser vendors don't like).
> 4. we don't need to define all sorts of complex interactions between
> <source> and <picture> by monkey patching "media elements".
>
> The src-n proposal is by no means perfect - particularly the viewport-url
> syntax might need a little more love; but apart from that, it's basically
> all the goodness of <picture> in a nice little img package.
>
> So, does anyone have any objections to us publishing picture as a Note?
>
> --
> Marcos Caceres
>
>
>
>


-- 

------------------------------

Shane Hudson (Website Developer -
www.ShaneHudson.net<http://www.shanehudson.net/>
)

07794746595

@ShaneHudson <https://twitter.com/#!/ShaneHudson> / +Shane
Hudson<https://plus.google.com/u/0/110111510059204475260>