Re: What do we do with picture?

I have been and still am a fan of the <picture> syntax, but at this point
it seems almost certain that, for a variety of reasons, it isn't going to
be implemented, so if we are going to have a solution for responsive images
then it's going to be an extension of <img>, and of the two proposals I
like most others here feel src-N is the better one.

So yes, perhaps publish <picture> as a note and move focus towards src-N.
There is still plenty of work to be done there, but I'm quite enthused by
it.


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
>
>
>
>