W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2012

Re: [whatwg] Correcting some misconceptions about Responsive Images

From: Ben Schwarz <ben.schwarz@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:49:41 +1000
Message-Id: <78B926A3-99C3-4793-85E0-7F8CE62A6083@gmail.com>
To: WHATWG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Tab, Thanks for going to effort of providing some clear and detailed notes about this.
I think the rest of the committee could learn from this account, and perhaps consider theres a lot more to communication than editing a live-spec and dumping it into the mailing list. 




On 22/05/2012, at 10:38 AM, Mathew Marquis wrote:

>>> 
>>> I don’t think this is the case. The public has largely resigned this to “`srcset` is happening because the WHATWG said so,” for certain, and that doesn’t seem entirely false—but I don’t think “hopeless acceptance” is the situation at present. I’ve been off the grid for a few days, but as I catch up on the conversation it seems as though a number of the RICG’s members have been contributing to the incremental improvement of the `srcset` proposal. I’m all for it, of course, as the goal was never _this or that_ solution so much as a solution that covers our use cases in the most developer-friendly way possible—and above all else, a solution with the most benefit to users.
>>> 
>>> The goal now—as ever—is the best possible solution. If we’re limited to `srcset`, then the goal is to make that as useful as possible. However, I’d be lying if I said it isn’t frustrating, feeling as though we’re all working from a forgone conclusion.
>> 
>> It's unfortunate that there was an expectation set early in the RICG
>> that their purpose was to produce spec-ready text to be included into
>> HTML.  Hopefully we'll do a better job in the future communicating
>> that what's necessary is use-cases to design a feature around, so we
>> don't run into similar expectation mismatches.
>> 
>> ~TJ
> 
> You’re certainly right that it’s not worth bickering about, and I apologize if I came across that way.
> 
> I only hope that “we’ll do a better job in the future” has no reflection on the current discussions — mis-matched processes are no reason to throw away useful data, after all, and the Community Group has no shortage of that.
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 00:50:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:08 GMT